Hunter v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union

DENISE HUNTER, DIANE AVILA,and SHERIDA HUDAK, Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION ("SEIU"), ELISEO MEDINA,Individually and as Trustee of SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL #73,and MARY KAY HENRY, Individually and as President of SEIU, Defendants.

No. 18 C 986

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

March 21, 2019

Related case: No. 18 C 2728

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Denise Hunter, Diane Avila, and Sherida Hudak are members in good standing of Service Employees International Union, Local #73 ("Local 73"), a local labor union. Local 73 is affiliated with Defendant, Service Employees International Union ("SEIU"). In August 2016, SEIU took control of Local 73 by placing it into trusteeship. Plaintiffs assert claims arising out of the trusteeship against SEIU; SEIU's President, Defendant Mary Kay Henry; and Local 73's former Trustee, Defendant Eliseo Medina. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Title I of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), which guarantees, among other things, equal rights and freedom of speech to all union members. See 29 U.S.C. § 411 et seq. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants violated Title III of the LMRDA, which governs when and how a labor organization can impose a trusteeship on a subordinate organization. See 29 U.S.C. § 461 et seq. The trusteeship was in effect when Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, but it ended in November 2018 after Local 73 elected and installed new officers.

Before the court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and recounted in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chicago v. Nielsen, 878 F.3d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 2017).

A. The Parties

Plaintiffs are all members in good standing of Local 73. (First Amended Complaint [51] ("First Am. Compl."), ¶ 3.) Local 73 maintains its principal office in Chicago, Illinois. (Id. ¶ 4.) It is affiliated with Defendant SEIU. (Id. ¶ 3.) Local 73 and SEIU are labor organizations engaged in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 3 of the LMRDA. (Id. ¶ 4; see 29 U.S.C. §§ 402(i), (j).)

Defendant Henry is the President of SEIU. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 6.) On or about August 3, 2016, SEIU took Local 73 into trusteeship "for the alleged inability of [Local 73's] then President, Christine Boardman, to maintain the democratic process during a membership meeting." (Id. ¶ 8.)¹ When Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, Defendant Medina was Local 73's Trustee. (See First Am. Compl. ¶ 7.) Henry had appointed Medina to that position sometime on or after the date the trusteeship began. (See id.)

B. The SEIU Constitution and Bylaws and the Local 73 Constitution and Bylaws

Plaintiffs appear to allege that both the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws and the Local 73 Constitution and Bylaws govern officer elections in Local 73. (See id. ¶ 10 (alleging that underthe SEIU Constitution and Bylaws, "both the SEIU and Local 73 are charged with the responsibility of conducting the elections of officers"); id. ¶ 11 (alleging that the same documents "charg[e]" Local 73 "with conducting elections under its own Constitution and Bylaws").) Both sets of constitutions and bylaws mandate procedures for nominating and electing officers. (See id. ¶¶ 12-16.) For example, the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws require nominations to "be made in open convention." (Id. ¶ 12 (internal quotation marks omitted).) The Local 73 Constitution and Bylaws provide, among other things, that nominations must "take place at the regular membership meeting" after members timely receive notice about the time, place, and purpose of the meeting. (Id. ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted).)

C. The Trusteeship

As previously noted, SEIU took Local 73 into trusteeship on or about August 3, 2016. (Id. ¶ 8.) Pursuant to the LMRDA, the trusteeship "is presumed invalid after eighteen months," meaning on or after February 3, 2018. (Id. ¶ 9 (citing Section 464(c) of Title III of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 464(c)).) Plaintiffs do not expressly allege that Defendants violated Title III by improperly establishing the trusteeship. Rather, they allege that Defendants "have failed to act consistent with the terms of" the LMRDA, the SEIU Constitution and Bylaws, and the Local 73 Constitution and Bylaws "to limit the term of the [t]rusteeship to eighteen months." (First Am. Compl. ¶ 19.)

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to "seek nominations for a ballot" and "comply with the election procedures necessary . . . to return control of Local 73 to its members." (Id. ¶ 17.) At the general membership meeting on September 23, 2017, for example, a Local 73 member made a motion to "commence elections" and another member properly seconded it. (Id. ¶ 18.) Local 73's "then Trustee Denise Poloyac," however, "rejected the [m]otion and declared, contrary to previous representations, that the meeting was not a 'general membership meeting.'" (Id.) Subsequently, on January 4, 2018, certain members of Local 73 created a slate of candidates for officers and executive board members and posted it on a website called Members Leading Members ("MLM"). (Id. ¶ 21.) Complying with the relevant proceduresset forth in the "Constitution and Bylaws,"² the website's creators presented the slate "for ratification by the membership." (Id.) The slate was "supported by more than 2000 signatures from the Local 73 membership." (Id.) Four days after the slate was presented for ratification, "seven of the officer candidates listed on [it] . . . were unilaterally suspended, without notice and without due process or hearing." (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiffs allege that before their suspension, the candidates were "staff members" of Local 73. (See id. ¶ 33 (referring to "the terminations of the staff members of the Members-Leading-Members political slate" (emphasis added).) Two days after their suspensions, the officer candidates "were unilaterally terminated, without notice, charges, or due process hearing." (Id. ¶ 23.)³ Defendants informed the officers in writing that the reason for their suspensions and terminations was "their association with the [MLM] website." (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs allege that by suspending and terminating the officer candidates from their staff positions, Defendants illegally limited those candidates' "rights to free political speech under the LMRDA." (Id. ¶ 25.)⁴

D. Amendments to the Local 73 Constitution and Bylaws

Plaintiffs allege that after they filed this lawsuit on February 7, 2018—which was "after the 18 month period of validity for the [t]rusteeship had expired"—Defendants "devised a plan to eliminate the political dissent of the [MLM] slate and essentially continue their [t]rusteeship."(Id. ¶ 26.) Defendants planned to maintain their positions of power, Plaintiffs allege, by amending election- and governance-related provisions of the "Constitution and Bylaws." (Id.)⁵ According to Plaintiffs, Defendants did not solicit input from the general membership in developing the amendments. (Id. ¶ 28.) Instead, a ten-person committee developed them under Medina's leadership. (Id. ¶ 27.) Each committee member was either "favorable to the Trustees," which the court assumes is a reference to the trusteeship and/or Medina, or sought elected positions "in the new governing structure," which the court assumes is a reference to a new leadership structure that the amendments would construct. (Id.)

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants administered a vote to pass the amendments "without following the required procedures under the Local or International Constitutions." (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiffs do not specify what provisions of the constitutions Defendants allegedly violated, nor do they explain what the required procedures are. Instead, Plaintiffs describe what they allege are procedural deficiencies and leave the reader to assume that the deficiencies violate the constitutions. For example, "[t]he proposed changes were not read at a membership meeting," the members did not have an opportunity to discuss or revise the changes, and "[t]he proposed changes were not voted upon by a two-thirds majority at a second membershipmeeting." (Id. ¶ 30.) Additionally, Local 73's members did not receive timely notice of the vote on the amendments. (Id. ¶ 31.) The notice that members did receive was deficient, Plaintiffs allege, including because it provided a synopsis of the amendments rather than the actual language. (Id.) Further, "many thousands of members were disenfranchised" because members had to vote in person, but Defendants limited the number of polling locations. (Id.) Finally, the trusteeship campaigned at voting sites; the ballot boxes were unmarked, unlocked, and unattended; and "[t]he votes were not counted by an independent agency." (Id. ¶¶ 31, 32.)

The amendments (hereinafter the "Amended Local 73 Constitution and Bylaws") passed on June 26, 2018 with "973 yes votes," a number that "represent[ed] less than 4% of the membership." (Id. ¶¶ 30, 32.) Plaintiffs allege that the amendments prevent more than sixty-five percent of the MLM candidates from obtaining elected positions, either by eliminating positions or changing eligibility requirements. (Id. ¶ 29.)⁶

E. Plaintiffs' Claims

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Title I of the LMRDA by amending the Local 73 Constitution and Bylaws for an illegal purpose—to suppress "criticism of the trusteeship and quash[] political adversaries"—and by violating provisions of the SEIU and Local 73 constitutions and bylaws in the ratification process. (See id. ¶¶ 26-33.) Plaintiffs do not cite specific provisions of Title I, but the court assumes they are invoking Section 101(a)(1), the "equal rights" provision, and Section...