964 F. Supp. 2d 37
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Dimondstein, McKinnon, Ward) are APWU members running as a slate for union offices and requested that the union distribute their campaign literature by e-mail to members at the candidates’ expense before the election.
- APWU maintains an iMIS database with ~27,000 member e-mail addresses and has previously used that data to populate two active e-mail lists (the e-Team and a Retiree list). APWU contends it does not generally use the full database for mass member e-mails.
- Plaintiffs asked for segmentation (geography, craft, retiree, etc.) to target portions of the membership; APWU declined, citing a policy against providing member e- mail addresses and other internal concerns.
- Plaintiffs filed suit under § 401(c) of the LMRDA seeking a preliminary injunction compelling APWU to distribute their campaign e-mails at Plaintiffs’ expense before ballots are mailed. Plaintiffs agreed to pay all costs.
- The district court held a bench decision granting the preliminary injunction, finding Plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, the balance of equities favored Plaintiffs, and that injunctive relief served the public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §401(c) requires a union to distribute candidate literature via e-mail when the union uses e-mail to communicate with members | §401(c) covers distribution “by mail or otherwise” and, under DOL guidance, unions must honor reasonable requests to use e-mail if they themselves use e-mail to communicate | §401(c) does not compel access to every method of distribution; APWU need not provide e-mail access and has a policy opposing candidate e-mails | Court: §401(c) can encompass e-mail; when a union uses e-mail, it must comply with reasonable e-mail distribution requests |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ specific request (use of APWU’s e-mail lists and segmented sublists) was a “reasonable request” under §401(c) | The request is reasonable because APWU already has the database and has used it to generate lists; Plaintiffs will bear all costs; segmentation is practicable | APWU asserts administrative burdens, limited ability to sort data, and internal policies (prefer postal mail; protect legislative lists) | Court: Request is reasonable — no undue financial or administrative burden shown; internal union rules cannot make a reasonable request unreasonable |
| Whether denial of e-mail distribution would cause irreparable harm warranting preliminary relief | Loss of inexpensive, effective communication to substantial segments of voters is irreparable; post-election remedies are inadequate | APWU points to alternative outlets (mailings, magazine, website, social media) | Court: Plaintiffs showed likely irreparable harm; alternatives are less effective/passive; post-election relief is inadequate |
| Balance of equities and public interest in granting injunction | Enforcement of §401(c) promotes union democracy; no meaningful injury to APWU because Plaintiffs will pay costs and lists can be segmented | Injunction interferes with internal union affairs and may undermine APWU’s legislative e-mail list | Court: Equities and public interest favor Plaintiffs; §401(c) contemplates interference to secure democratic elections |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
- Int’l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Brown, 498 U.S. 466 (§401(c) requires focus on reasonableness of candidate’s request, not union rules)
- Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel & Club Emp. Union, Local 6, 391 U.S. 492 (LMRDA’s goal to ensure free and democratic union elections)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (persuasive weight of agency interpretations)