International Union, Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America v. Faye, 828 F.3d 969

The International Union, Security, Police & Fire Professionals of America sued its former District Director Assane Faye, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties while he was employed and asserting claims under 29 U.S.C. § 501 (LMRDA), D.C. law, and LMRA (the LMRA claim was not pursued on appeal).
Section 501(a) of the LMRDA declares federal fiduciary duties for union officers; § 501(b) expressly creates a federal derivative-style cause of action for union members to sue "for the benefit of the labor organization" only after the union "refuse[s] or fail[s] to sue" and after obtaining leave of court.
The district court held that § 501 provides a federal cause of action only to individual union members (not to the union itself) and dismissed the union’s federal and supplemental state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The union appealed, arguing § 501 implies a federal cause of action for the union itself; the court reviews de novo and treats the question as a merits issue (not jurisdictional) under Supreme Court authority.
The D.C. Circuit majority relied on Weaver v. United Mine Workers, which allowed a union to assume control of a member-initiated § 501 suit, concluding Weaver’s reasoning necessarily means a union may sue under § 501 in the first instance; concurring judges separately explained statutory-text and stare-decisis reasons; the dissent argued Weaver did not decide the implied-action issue and would affirm dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 29 U.S.C. § 501 implies a federal cause of action allowing a union itself to sue its agents for breach of the duties declared in § 501(a)	The Union: § 501(a) creates federal rights belonging to the union; § 501(b)’s structure (requiring the union to be asked to sue before a member may) implies unions can sue in federal court; Weaver permits the union to be a plaintiff	Faye: Congress created an express federal remedy only for members; text and structure of § 501(b) show Congress intended member suits, not union suits in federal court; Weaver did not decide this question	The court (majority): Reverse. Weaver (and the statute’s text/structure as interpreted by concurrences) compels that unions may bring § 501 suits; supplemental jurisdiction supports state-law claims

Weaver v. United Mine Workers of America, 492 F.2d 580 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (allowed a union to assume control of a member-initiated § 501 action)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (U.S. 2001) (framework for implying private rights and remedies from statute)
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (U.S. 2014) (distinguishing absence of cause of action from lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (employee-numerosity rule as merits issue, not jurisdictional)
Building Material & Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420 v. Traweek, 867 F.2d 500 (9th Cir. 1989) (no implied union cause of action under § 501)
Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276 (7th Cir. 2009) (recognized implied union cause of action under § 501)
Int’l Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine & Furniture Workers v. Statham, 97 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir. 1996) (recognized implied union cause of action under § 501)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1996) (binding effect of prior precedent and necessary portions of earlier opinions)
Karahalios v. Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Employees, Local 1263, 489 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1989) (reluctance to imply causes of action where statute provides an express remedy)