(“[T]he time period for filing a [breach of the duty of fair representation] claim is not tolled by pursuing a Title VII claim with the EEOC.”); Snyder v. Fry’s Food Stores of Ariz., Inc., No. CIV 95-2858 PHX RCB, 1996 WL 806690, at *3-4 (D.Ariz. July 18, 1996) (citing Johnson in support of the conclusion that the filing of an EEOC charge does not toll the limitations period for a breach of the duty of fair representation claim because “such a filing is not a precondition” to the claim), rev’d on other grounds, 201 F.3d 445, 1999 WL 1021463 (9th Cir.1999). In reaching its decision, the Ninham court relied on the reasoning and analysis of the Supreme Court in International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Local 790 v. Robbins & My 0-61, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975) (<HOLDING>)). The Robbins & Myers Court explained that the
holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 usc  1981 recognizing that under 42 usc  2000e5el a title vii claim is timely where the eeoc charge was filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge pursuant to  706 of title vii 42 usc  2000e5 did not toll the statute of limitations for an action brought on the same facts under 42 usc  1981 holding that plaintiffs claims under 42 usc  1981 are also governed by the special venue provision of title vii holding that pursuant to 42 usc  2000e2 and 2000e5 a plaintiff may in a mixed motives case establish a title vii violation without proving that an impermissible consideration was the sole or butfor motive for the employment action