Hudson, Jr. v. American Federation of Government Employees
Civil Action No. 2017-1867
D.D.C.Nov 15, 2017Background
- Hudson, elected National Secretary-Treasurer (NST) of AFGE, was removed after an NEC finding that he violated the AFGE Constitution stemming from an email he sent to members using AFGE resources.
- A 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, which voted to remove Hudson; Hudson appealed to the National Convention (scheduled for Aug. 2018).
- Hudson sued under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), arguing he was denied a full and fair hearing due to bias; the court granted a preliminary injunction ordering AFGE to reinstate him, finding a significant risk of actual bias.
- AFGE moved to stay/modify the injunction pending completion of new disciplinary proceedings it proposed to finish by Jan. 2, 2018, arguing administrative burden and disruption if Hudson were reinstated then removed again.
- The court treated the request as a Rule 60(b) motion to modify the injunction and analyzed changed circumstances, relative harms, and the purpose of injunctive relief (preserving the status quo).
- The court denied the stay/modification: AFGE’s selection of a new committee did not constitute a significant change to justify modification, and Hudson’s interest in reinstatement outweighed AFGE’s administrative inconvenience.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injunction ordering reinstatement should be stayed/modified pending new AFGE proceedings | Hudson: injunction necessary because prior process had significant risk of actual bias; reinstatement preserves rights pending merits | AFGE: reconstituting a new impartial committee and completing new proceedings by Jan. 2, 2018 warrants staying reinstatement to avoid administrative disruption | Denied — no equitable justification to delay reinstatement; changed circumstances insufficient and harms to Hudson outweigh AFGE inconvenience |
| Whether selection of a new Committee constitutes a "significant change" warranting modification under Rule 60(b) | Hudson: prior findings of bias remain; new committee selection is insufficient | AFGE: new committee selection is a changed circumstance that makes continued injunctive relief inequitable | Held that selecting a new committee is not a significant change in circumstances to modify injunction |
| Proper standard to evaluate the request to alter the injunction | Hudson: court should preserve status quo pending adjudication | AFGE: argued practical considerations (confusion, morale, administrative burden) justify relief | Court applied Rule 60(b) / equitable-modification framework and balanced harms; preserved status quo in favor of Hudson |
| Relative harms from reinstatement now versus administrative burden later | Hudson: irreparable harm from being kept out of elected office (missed meetings, duties) | AFGE: practical disruption and impracticality of reinstating then removing within two months | Court found Hudson’s harms outweighed AFGE’s administrative inconvenience |
Key Cases Cited
- Wildberger v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 86 F.3d 1188 (D.C. Cir.) (addresses significant risk of actual bias for union disciplinary proceedings)
- Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve the parties’ relative positions pending trial)
- District 50, United Mine Workers v. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers, 412 F.2d 165 (D.C. Cir.) (definition of the status quo antecedent to controversy)
- Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of Am., 459 F.2d 1201 (D.C. Cir.) (reinstatement to preserve status quo pending resolution)
- Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (2017) (discussion of balancing equities and modifying injunctions)
- 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)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (standard for modifying consent decrees and injunctions)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (what constitutes a significant change in factual conditions to modify an injunction)
- Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X, LLC, 968 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D.D.C.) (treating reconsideration of preliminary injunction as motion to modify)