883 F.3d 636
6th Cir.2018Background
- Robbie Ohlendorf and Sandra Adams signed union dues checkoff authorizations in 2013 allowing their employer to deduct dues; the forms made the checkoff irrevocable for one year and then renewable yearly unless revoked by certified mail during a 15-day annual window.
- In 2016 both attempted to revoke: they sent written revocations by regular mail and outside the prescribed 15-day window; the union refused to stop accepting dues.
- They filed a putative class action against Local 876 seeking (1) damages under 29 U.S.C. § 186 (LMRA §302) for unlawful deductions/acceptance and (2) injunctive relief to bar the union’s window-period and certified-mail conditions; the district court dismissed.
- During appeal Adams later successfully revoked her authorization and Ohlendorf left his job; the injunctive claim became moot but the damages claim for past deductions remained live.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal: (a) §302 does not create an express or implied private right to money damages, and (b) the union did not breach its duty of fair representation because enforcement of the agreed-to form was not arbitrary or in bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 29 U.S.C. §302 (LMRA §302) creates a private cause of action for money damages when employers deduct dues and unions accept them | Ohlendorf/Adams: §302’s ban on willful payments/acceptance and §302(e) jurisdiction imply a private right to sue for damages and injunctive relief | Union: §302 is a criminal statute enforced by the Attorney General; §302(e) is jurisdictional and does not create a private damages remedy; no express or implied right exists | No private right of action; plaintiffs may not sue for money damages under §302 (affirmed) |
| Whether §302(e)’s grant of jurisdiction to "restrain violations" creates an individual right to seek injunctive relief | Plaintiffs: §302(e) confers authority to sue to enjoin violations | Union: §302(e) is jurisdictional — permits courts to enjoin at the AG’s or in connection with other statutory causes of action, not to create an independent private remedy | §302(e) does not itself create an independent private cause of action; it supplies jurisdiction for AG suits or for injunctions incidental to other express private actions |
| Whether the injunctive claim is moot given changed circumstances | Plaintiffs: sought prospective relief against enforcement of revocation procedures | Union: plaintiffs no longer suffer ongoing injury (Adams revoked; Ohlendorf left) | Prospective injunctive claim is moot; only retrospective damages claim survives |
| Whether the union breached its duty of fair representation by enforcing the certified-mail and window-period terms | Plaintiffs: enforcing those procedural requirements was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith | Union: plaintiffs agreed to those terms when signing the form; enforcing the form was reasonable and not dishonest | Union did not act arbitrarily or in bad faith; duty-of-fair-representation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (statute must create rights, not just benefits, to imply private action)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (no implied right without clear congressional intent)
- Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (jurisdictional provisions do not create causes of action)
- Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (courts reluctant to imply private remedies from criminal or regulatory statutes)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (standard for duty of fair representation: arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith)
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (arbitrariness measured against a wide range of reasonableness)
- Merritt v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 613 F.3d 609 (6th Cir.) (bad faith defined as improper intent, fraud, or dishonesty)