for arbitration within a reasonable period of time thereafter.” Id. at 1144^45. The court reasoned that the goal of the short statute of limitations was to prevent the threat of arbitration “dangling, unresolved” for an extended period of time. Id. Defendant urges the Court to adopt the reasoning of Coca-Cola, that “when one party tells another that it has no viable cause of action because any claims that it might have had are now time-barred, that party has unequivocally refused to arbitrate. Although Coca-Cola might have chosen its words more carefully, there is no need for a party refusing to arbitrate to use that term (or any other talismanic words) to express its refusal to arbitrate.” 114 Fed.Appx. at 141 (5th Cir.2004); see also Middendorf Meat Co., 991 F.2d 801, *2 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>). The Fifth Circuit also relied upon the fact
holding that collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights holding that the claim accrued after the employer denied a request for arbitration as untimely under the collective bargaining agreement holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union holding that arbitration pursuant to collective bargaining agreement is not res judicata and cannot collaterally estop a civil rights claim holding that the statute of limitations applicable to a section 301 suit was the same as that which applies to suits against an employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement