themselves allege that ALPA made the misrepresentation in an attempt to “legitimize ALPA’s abdication of its responsibility,” an allegation that supports a claim of negligence, not bad faith. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the mere collection of management fees in exchange for services legally rendered does not, without more, evidence an improper motive. The cases that plaintiffs cite all involved illegal kickback schemes. See Conrad, Co. v. Jesco, Inc., No. 89-1726, 908 F.2d 966, 1990 W1 101427, at *3 (4th Cir. July 12, 1990) (per curiam) (unpublished) (stating that “receiving of a kickback or a bribe” would indicate bad faith); Peterson v. Offshore Div. of Int’l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots, No. 87-6374, 851 F.2d 360, 1988 WL 69763, at *1 (9th Cir. June 27, 1988) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs do not allege an illegal kickback
holding that sixmonth duty of fair representation statute of limitations applicable to claim alleging breach of union contract holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false holding intentional conduct without rational basis is arbitrary breach of duty of fair representation holding that plaintiff had alleged fair representation claim on basis of allegations of  kickbacks in vacation pay holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex