Trail v. Local 2850, UAW/United Defense Workers of America
849 F. Supp. 2d 644
W.D. Va.2012Background
- Trail worked for General Dynamics in Marion, Virginia from 1989 to 2009 and was a union member of Local 2850, UAW/United Defense Workers of America.
- In March 2009 she was indicted for identity theft; General Dynamics suspended her pending disposition.
- GD notified the Union she would be returned with back pay if exonerated; a nolle prosequi occurred in August 2009.
- Trail reported a pornographic incident involving local union officers on August 13, 2009; she faced delayed grievance proceedings and later termination.
- Trail alleges the Union officers retaliated against her for reporting the incident, obstructing the grievance process, and harassing her in violation of LMRDA.
- The court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Trail’s complaint, finding no actionable LMRDA retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trail states a Section 609 retaliation claim. | Trail alleges protected LMRDA rights were retaliated against by officers. | No formal union discipline; hostile acts by officers do not fit Section 609 retaliation. | Claim not actionable; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Breininger bars a free-standing retaliation claim. | Breininger does not bar a direct Section 101 claim or alternative remedies. | Ad hoc officer retaliation is not actionable under LMRDA. | Breininger controls; no free-standing retaliation claim recognized. |
| Whether there is a viable free-standing Section 102 claim. | Corollary remedies under Section 102 exist for retaliation. | Speech must be protected under LMRDA and not personal in nature; no protected speech here. | No viable Section 102 claim; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Trail's speech falls within protected LMRDA scope. | Speech criticizing union leadership should be protected. | Speech was not about general union matters; it was about pornography incident reporting. | Speech not protected; not within Section 101(a)(2). |
Key Cases Cited
- Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (1989) (ad hoc officer retaliation not actionable under LMRDA)
- Maddalone v. Local 17, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 152 F.3d 178 (2d Cir.1998) (retaliation must follow established union disciplinary process)
- Hylla v. Transp. Comm’ns Int’l Union, 536 F.3d 911 (8th Cir.2008) (speech protection limited to matters of union democracy)
- Casumpang v. Int’l Longshore, & Warehouse Union, Local 142, 297 F.Supp.2d 1238 (D. Haw. 2003) (speech related to general union affairs; not personal grievances)
- United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102 (1982) (speech related to union democracy, not individual grievances)
- Black v. Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide, Inc., 970 F.2d 1461 (6th Cir.1992) (speech must relate to general interests of union membership)