527 F. App'x 187
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Knight was disciplined as a union official for conduct detrimental to the Union, including misrepresenting a union-sponsored meeting.
- Knight, the local financial secretary, accepted $500 from a Port Authority official and allegedly misled a colleague about it.
- District Court concluded Knight’s suspension was not actionable discipline and found no free-speech violation; remand addressed overbreadth, not back-pay.
- Knight pursued back-pay and a free-speech claim; district court, and on remand, denied such claims; this court affirms on direct appeal, reverses on cross-appeal.
- On cross-appeal, the Union contends Knight’s due-process rights were violated by convicting him of conduct not charged; the court clarifies the Mollen ruling.
- The court addresses punitive damages under the LMDRA and finds no basis for awarding such damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Back-pay for lost wages due to removal | Knight asserts free-speech retaliation warranted back-pay. | ILA contends no free-speech violation and waived claim; district court properly denied. | No reversible error; back-pay claim inadequately supported. |
| Punitive damages under the LMDRA | Knight supporters seek punitive damages for recklessness and malice. | No evidence of malice or reckless indifference; standard unmet. | District Court did not abuse discretion; punitive damages not warranted. |
| Due process for conviction not charged under § 302 | Mollen’s language about spirit and intent implied new charges; due process violated. | Mollen found conduct detrimental under the union constitution, not a new charge; no due-process violation. | Due-process violation not established; Mollen’s reasoning concerned conduct detrimental. |
| Remand and scope of proceedings on remand | Affirmed in direct appeal; reversed on the cross-appeal regarding due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1982) (free-speech rights and union discipline considerations)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1988) (law of the case and issue preclusion concepts)
- Skretneck v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 372 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2004) (appeal scope and waivers on remand issues)
- Knight v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n., 457 F.3d 331 (3d Cir. 2006) (law-of-the-case and waiver principles in due process/free-speech context)
- Knight et al. v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n., 724 F. Supp. 2d 480 (D. Del. 2010) (district-court analysis of disciplinary actions and remedies)