O’Brien v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers case
brief summary
443 F.Supp. 1182 (1977)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff was charged with violating a union constitution. Plaintiff was initially fined by the defendant local union, however, that decision was rescinded after it was discovered that defendant international union had jurisdiction. Thereafter, plaintiff filed this action pursuant to the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 401 et seq., against defendants alleging that plaintiff was restrained in the exercise of his rights of free speech and assembly.
ARGUMENT
Defendant international union argued that since it only asserted jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the provisions of the union constitution, it could not be held to have violated the LMRDA.
DISCUSSION
The court found that although defendant international union provided plaintiff with procedural due process, this did not preclude recovery if plaintiff was disciplined for assertion of a right under the LMRDA.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted in part on plaintiff's claim because procedural due process was provided and denied in part to strike plaintiff's request for emotional distress and punitive damages.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
443 F.Supp. 1182 (1977)
CASE SYNOPSIS
This matter was before the United
States District Court for the Northern District (Georgia) on
defendant's motion for summary judgment in this action brought by
plaintiff under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
(LMRDA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 401 et seq.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff was charged with violating a union constitution. Plaintiff was initially fined by the defendant local union, however, that decision was rescinded after it was discovered that defendant international union had jurisdiction. Thereafter, plaintiff filed this action pursuant to the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C.S. § 401 et seq., against defendants alleging that plaintiff was restrained in the exercise of his rights of free speech and assembly.
ARGUMENT
Defendant international union argued that since it only asserted jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the provisions of the union constitution, it could not be held to have violated the LMRDA.
DISCUSSION
The court found that although defendant international union provided plaintiff with procedural due process, this did not preclude recovery if plaintiff was disciplined for assertion of a right under the LMRDA.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted in part on plaintiff's claim because procedural due process was provided and denied in part to strike plaintiff's request for emotional distress and punitive damages.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment