To be a union official is to take on responsibility that is unparalleled in any other profession. A union official is, at least, one part lawyer, one part social worker, one part diplomat, and one part politician. A union official has to understand labor law, collective bargaining, and contract interpretation, make referrals to social service resources, negotiate with powerful corporate titans and government officials and provide counseling to union members on a myriad of subjects and in a wide variety of tense, high stakes situations. A union official needs to balance empathy with toughness and compassion with, often brutal, honesty. The position requires the union official to draw on a wealth of emotional and intellectual resources in which complex subjects such as law and finance must be synthesized with personal experience and hands-on work at the trade, craft, or profession that the official represents. As unions are not-for-profit enterprises and consistently under member pressure to keep dues affordable, union officials often have overwhelming caseloads. All this, moreover, occurs in a highly politicized atmosphere where outside corporate forces and the media defame the good works performed by union officials with derogatory, oversimplifying references to them as “bosses.”
The reward for all this dedication is far too often that union officials are forced to answer and defend their decisions in lawsuits brought by their own members, often with the backing of law firms financed by right to scab and right to freeload forces. Isaacs Devasia Castro & Wien are experts in defending these lawsuits.
Recently, a member of a Correction Officers union represented by IDC&W sued after claiming sexual assault by a supervisor. The allegations against the supervisor were horrendous, but the union member and her lawyers set sight not only on the supervisor and the employer but also on the union officials who tried to help her. The union member specifically demanded that union officials complain on her behalf to higher management and speak with the alleged assailant. When the union official honored both requests, the member and her attorney hypocritically claimed that the union officials violated her constitutional rights by doing exactly what she requested.
On March 4, 2021, the United States District Court recognized the absurdity of these allegations and dismissed the lawsuit against the union officials. The court specifically noted that the union member could not claim a constitutional violation against private citizens and that union officials when acting in the union official capacity are private citizens. This is true, said the court, even if the officials are employed by the government and receiving employment benefits from the government. The court, found “logically inconsistent” the union member’s “central premise” that, by doing exactly what was requested, that is, contacting the assailant and upper management, the union officials engaged in a conspiracy with government officials to violate her constitutional rights.
IDC&W secured this dismissal, moreover, at the motion to dismiss stage of the litigation. This is of critical importance for union officials because they avoided spending significant time defending this meritless litigation. Securing dismissal early means no time lost due to extensive document production or depositions which can exponentially exacerbate an already overburdened union official.
IDC&W is pleased to report this successful decision which is now available on Westlaw at 2021 WL 826235
IDC&W Partner Howard Wien represented the union officials in this action.