Martin v. Local 556, Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, 3:14-cv-00500

Background

Plaintiffs Stacy Martin, Chris Click, and Jerry Lindemann are Southwest Airlines flight attendants and members/officers of TWU Local 556; a rival faction (the "Lauck Group") contested and then regained control of the local, leading to disciplinary proceedings.
Click opposed a proposed constitutional amendment and protested at a rally; he was charged (and initially acquitted) for speech-related conduct; the local posted hearing results and later re‑tried and found him guilty after rescheduling.
Click and Lindemann were suspended, retried in absentia after continuance requests were denied, found guilty, removed from office, and banned from running for three years; Martin was also suspended, tried before a board containing his accusers, found guilty, and removed.
Plaintiffs sued under the LMRDA (29 U.S.C. §§ 411, 412, 529), alleging denial of free‑speech/member rights and lack of a full and fair hearing; earlier dismissal (Martin I) allowed leave to amend on several claims.
TWU Local moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and to strike; the court evaluates plausibility under Twombly/Iqbal standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Click was disciplined for exercising §411(a)(2) membership speech rights	Click says his pre‑election speech and rally conduct were as a member and he was retaliated against	TWU Local argues plaintiffs’ claims focus on officer status and removals, not protected member speech	Denied as to Click: allegations plausibly show exercise of §411(a)(2) rights and retaliation sufficient to survive dismissal
Whether plaintiffs were denied a full and fair hearing under §411(a)(5)(C) when banned from office	Plaintiffs allege retrials, nullification of acquittals, denial of continuances, trials by accusers, and prejudged outcomes	TWU Local contends prior opinion controls and the complaint still focuses only on officer status/removal	Denied: court finds plaintiffs alleged new factual bases for §411(a)(5)(C) as to the three‑year ban and unfair procedures; claim survives pleading stage
Whether removal/suspension from office alone states a claim under §§411/412/529	Plaintiffs contend removals and related discipline were part of a scheme to dismantle union democracy	TWU Local argues removals are political in‑fighting and not membership‑rights discipline under LMRDA	Granted in part: removals/suspensions as officer status claims dismissed—plaintiffs failed to plead plausible scheme to subvert union democracy
Whether the complaint or portions should be struck (local counsel, preliminary injunction request)	Plaintiffs complied by designating local counsel; injunction request pleaded	TWU Local sought striking for local counsel rule violations and mootness	Denied: plaintiffs cured local counsel issue; court declines to strike injunctive request absent clearer grounds

Key Cases Cited

Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526 (Sup. Ct.) (describing LMRDA §411 as a members’ bill of rights)
Adams-Lundy v. Ass’n of Prof’l Flight Attendants, 731 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir.) (officers aren’t separately protected unless removal is part of scheme to subvert union democracy)
Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (Sup. Ct.) (distinguishing removal from office versus discipline affecting membership rights under LMRDA)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (pleading must contain more than legal conclusions)
Martinez v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 980 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir.) ( §412 private cause of action requires infringement of §411–415 rights)
United Steelworkers Local 12-369 v. United Steelworkers Int’l, 728 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing §412 and §529; §529 protects retaliation for exercising any LMRDA right)