party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Importantly, inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Corp. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Yet it is also true that the non-moving party, “may not rest upon mere allegations or denials ... but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue [of material fact].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). 16 . See Wright v. Safeway, Inc., 804 F.Supp. 752, 756 (D.Md.1992) (<HOLDING>); Perry v. Midstates Independent Union, 20
holding that statute of limitations does not run until it was or should have been clear to the employee that the union would not pursue the grievance holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union holding that former employees lawsuit was not barred by res judicata by unions prior suit where employee was not a party to the prior suit as a former union member was not in privity with the union and never authorized the union to represent his interest in prior suit holding that employee did not invoke grievance procedure where he never mentioned the word grievance to the union and where he never asked the union to take any action on his behalf holding that where an employee has never requested the union to file a grievance the employee can hardly argue a breach of the duty of fair representation on the unions part