RILEY v. PORTLAND MAINE AREA LOCAL NO 458 AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION AFL-CIO et al

Filing 41

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 26 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 29 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (ckb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOHN J. RILEY,
PLAINTIFF
V.

PORTLAND MAINE AREA LOCAL
NO. 458 AMERICAN POSTAL
WORKERS UNION AFL-CIO AND
TIMOTHY DOUGHTY,
DEFENDANTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-37-DBH

DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This lawsuit against the local chapter of a labor union and the local’s
president asserts claims under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 401-531. The plaintiff has consented to the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment on Count III, a state law claim. I DENY the defendants’
motion for summary judgment on the two federal counts.

I also DENY the

plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the defendants’ Fourth and
Sixth Affirmative Defenses, having to do with exhaustion of union remedies.
I DENY the defendants’ motion as to Counts I and II because there are
genuine issues of material fact as to what the dues rules were for retired union
members like the plaintiff, whether the defendants changed them without
following proper procedures, and why the defendants treated the plaintiff the

way they did. On the exhaustion issue (relevant to both motions), the First
Circuit (like several other Circuits) says that the exhaustion provision of 29
U.S.C. § 411(a)(4) is a discretionary decision for the court. See e.g., Alfego v.
Executive Board of Local 143, 747 F.2d 64, 68 (1st Cir. 1984). Given the factual
issues as to what actually happened here in the treatment of the plaintiff and
his dues obligations, I will not exercise that discretion until I as the factfinder
(there is no jury demand) hear the evidence at trial.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
The plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE