HUDSON, JR. v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
1:17-cv-01867
D.D.C.Nov 15, 2017Background
- Hudson, elected National Secretary-Treasurer (NST) of AFGE, was removed after an NEC determination that he violated the AFGE Constitution for an email blast warning about political threats to unions.
- Charges originated after a National Vice-President filed complaints; a three-person Committee of Investigation (chaired by NVP Gerald Swanke, who had previously filed a charge against Hudson) found probable cause and referred the matter to the NEC.
- The NEC found Hudson guilty of three constitutional violations and voted to remove him; Hudson appealed to the National Convention (not scheduled until August 2018).
- Hudson sued under the LMRDA, alleging denial of a full and fair hearing and a significant risk of actual bias because Swanke chaired the Committee; the Court granted a preliminary injunction ordering Hudson reinstated as NST.
- AFGE moved to stay/modify the injunction and delay reinstatement until it could empanel a new, impartial Committee and complete new disciplinary proceedings by January 2, 2018.
- The Court treated AFGE’s filing as a Rule 60(b) motion to modify the injunction and denied it, concluding the changed circumstances were insufficient and Hudson would suffer ongoing irreparable harm from continued exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should delay reinstatement pending a new disciplinary hearing | Hudson argued the preliminary injunction was proper because Swanke’s chairmanship created a significant risk of actual bias and reinstatement must preserve the status quo | AFGE argued administrative inconvenience and confusion if Hudson is reinstated and then removed again; it seeks a stay until a new Committee completes proceedings by Jan 2, 2018 | Denied — court found the asserted change (new Committee) insufficient and administrative burdens did not outweigh Hudson’s irreparable harm |
| Whether AFGE showed a "significant change in circumstances" to modify the injunction | Hudson: no new facts undermining injunction; prejudice to his office persists | AFGE: constituting a new, impartial Committee is a material change justifying modification | Denied — the new Committee did not constitute the requisite significant change |
| Proper standard for modifying the injunction | Hudson relied on the Court’s prior injunctive analysis (bias, irreparable harm, equities) | AFGE framed the request as a stay/ modification under equitable discretion (Rule 60(b)) | Court applied Rule 60(b) / equitable-discretion framework and balanced equities; modification is appropriate only for significant changes |
| Balance of harms and public interest | Hudson: ongoing deprivation of elected office causes irreparable harm and harms representation | AFGE: reinstatement creates administratively burdensome, confusing outcomes and morale issues | Held for Hudson — administrative inconvenience minimal compared to irreparable harm of denying elected office |
Key Cases Cited
- Wildberger v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., 86 F.3d 1188 (D.C. Cir.) (significant risk of actual bias standard in union disciplinary context)
- Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (courts may modify or stay injunctions in equitable discretion; balance equities)
- Gov’t of Province of Manitoba v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir.) (party seeking modification bears burden to show significant change in circumstances)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (modification appropriate only when factual or legal changes render continuance inequitable)
- Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve status quo pending trial)