Trail v. Local 2850 UAW United Defense Workers of America et al

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER denying 15 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 5//10/12. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ABINGDON DIVISION
MELISSA H. TRAIL,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCAL 2850, UAW/UNITED
DEFENSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11CV00058
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Richard F. Hawkins, III, The Hawkins Law Firm, P.C., Richmond, Virginia,
for Plaintiff. Robert E. Paul, Zwerdling, Paul, Kahn & Wolly, P.C., Washington,
D.C., for Defendants.
Plaintiff Melissa H. Trail filed the present case seeking redress against her
labor unions under the “free speech” provision in Section 101(a)(2) of the Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”). The defendants moved
to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that Trail had not stated a cause of action. I
granted the defendants’ motion, holding that there was no free-standing retaliation
claim under Section 101 of the LMRDA and that, in any event, Trail’s report of
alleged misconduct by two union officials was not an exercise of free speech
protected under the statute.
Trail now moves to alter or amend the prior ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) in order to request leave to file a proposed amended

complaint, a copy of which was attached to the present motion. Trail argues that
the proposed amended complaint addresses the deficiencies of her prior factual
allegations.
I disagree. The proposed amended complaint does not cure the fundamental
defects of Trail’s original claim. While it does detail a series of events that
allegedly occurred after Trail reported the misconduct by two union officials, her
“report” is still not “free speech” within the meaning of the LMRDA. As discussed
in my prior ruling, the speech protected under the LMRDA “is limited to speech that
relates to the general interests of the union membership at large,” not speech that is
of an entirely personal interest. Hylla v. Transp. Commc’ns Int’l Union, 536 F.3d
911, 917 (8th Cir. 2008).

While Trail did, in some respects, criticize union

leadership, her complaint is not the type of “view[], argument[], or opinion[]” in
need of protection in order to promote union democracy. See 29 U.S.C.A. §
411(a)(2) (West 1998 & Supp. 2011). Thus, I find Trail’s request for leave to
amend to be futile because the proposed amended complaint fails to state a plausible
claim against the defendants. See Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503,
509 (4th Cir. 1986). Since the leave to amend would be denied, there is no cause
shown to alter or amend the judgment.

-2-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Alter
the Court’s March 27, 2012 Opinion and Order (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.

ENTER:

May 10, 2012

/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-3-