Joseph Harrison and Stephen Mazza v. Local One, International Union of Elevator Constructors of New York and New Jersey, AFL-CIO, Leonard Legotte, and International Union of Elevator Constructors

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York considers motions to dismiss claims arising from an intra-union dispute. Plaintiffs alleged that union defendants violated their rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act through retaliation, denial of a fair disciplinary hearing, and related state-law conduct. The court grants defendants’ motions and dismisses the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety.

Holdings

1. Mazza's reassignment as a business agent and removal from a benefit-fund trustee position did not constitute discipline under Section 609 because those actions affected only his union employment or appointed office, not his status or rights as a union member.
2. Mazza failed to state a Section 101(a)(2) claim because he did not adequately allege that his speech occurred in the union democratic process or that the challenged actions were causally connected to protected speech or part of a series of acts designed to suppress union dissent.
3. Harrison failed to state a Section 609 claim because the complaint and attached exhibits showed that his discipline was based on conceded misconduct at a union conference, not on the exercise of protected LMRDA rights.
4. Harrison failed to state a Section 101(a)(2) claim because he did not allege a direct nexus between protected activity and his discipline; his conceded misconduct provided an obvious alternative explanation, temporal proximity was insufficient, and the IUEC was not alleged to know about his election-related speech.
5. Harrison received adequate notice of the disciplinary charges because the written charges identified the nature and factual basis of the alleged misconduct, and service by properly addressed certified mail together with email constituted reasonable notice.
6. Harrison failed to allege that the IUEC trial board was biased because the appointment of hearing officers by a person who also testified did not, without specific factual allegations of improper motive or actual bias, establish an unfair hearing.
7. Harrison failed to state a claim for violation of the IUEC Constitution because, even assuming the charging procedure violated the Constitution, he was not deprived of a full and fair hearing.
8. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harrison's state-law breach of contract claim after dismissing all claims within the court's original jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mazza stated an LMRDA Section 609 claim based on his geographic reassignment and removal from a union trustee position.
2. Whether Mazza stated an LMRDA Section 101(a)(2) and Section 102 claim based on alleged retaliation for investigating union misconduct and supporting a candidate.
3. Whether Harrison stated an LMRDA Section 609 claim based on his charges and expulsion.
4. Whether Harrison stated an LMRDA Section 101(a)(2) claim by alleging that his discipline was retaliation for supporting a union election candidate.
5. Whether Harrison was denied the written specific charges, reasonable preparation time, full and fair hearing, and impartial tribunal required by LMRDA Section 101(a)(5).
6. Whether Harrison stated a claim for violation of the IUEC Constitution.
7. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harrison's state-law breach of contract claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed