Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/269/1042/532790/
Timestamp: 2020-06-03 10:15:01
Document Index: 69434197

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 481', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 401', '§ 481', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 5', '§ 102', '§ 412', '§ 101', '§ 411', '§ 411', '§ 482', '§ 483', '§ 1', '§ 483', '§ 1', '§ 101', '§ 411', '§ 401', '§ 481', '§ 402', '§ 482', '§ 402', '§ 482', '§ 403', '§ 483', '§ 403', '§ 403', '§ 403', '§ 403', '§ 101', '§ 411', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 704', '§ 2000', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 402', '§ 482', '§ 402', '§ 482', '§ 101', '§ 411', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 301', '§ 101', '§ 1', '§ 401', '§ 412', '§ 101', '§ 401', '§ 481', '§ 402', '§ 482', '§ 402', '§ 482', '§ 403', '§ 483', '§ 101', '§ 411', '§ 101', '§ 102', '§ 412']

Nicanor E. Casumpang, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 142, Defendant,andjohn Does 1-10; International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142; Eusebio Lapenia, Jr., Defendants-appellees, 269 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2001) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 2001 › Nicanor E. Casumpang, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's U...
Nicanor E. Casumpang, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 142, Defendant,andjohn Does 1-10; International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142; Eusebio Lapenia, Jr., Defendants-appellees, 269 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 269 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2001) Argued February 15, 2001Submission deferred February 15, 2001Submitted March 9, 2001Filed October 23, 2001
Nicanor E. Casumpang, Jr. appeals from the dismissal of this action. The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Title IV of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. § § 481-83 (2000), over his second amended complaint and, alternatively, on the basis that " [e]ven if the Court found that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint substantively involved Title I rights rather than Title IV rights, which it does not, the Court would still dismiss the complaint because Plaintiff failed to exhaust internal union procedures in a timely fashion."
Casumpang has been a member of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union ("ILWU") since July 22, 1981. On April 2, 1996, Casumpang was employed full-time as an elected business agent of Local 142 of the ILWU. Members of the Local Executive Board filed written charges against him on that date, alleging he had violated Article II, § 1 of the Local's constitution.1 The matter was set for trial on April 16, 1996 before the Maui Division Trial Committee. Before then, Casumpang, officers of the Local, and Roger Tacdol, the ILWU Maui Division Director, entered into a stipulation concerning the facts and waived their right to a trial.
Based on the stipulated facts, the Maui Division Trial Committee found Casumpang guilty of violating Article II, § 1 of the Local's constitution. Casumpang was ordered to cease working as an electrical contractor and to seek prior authorization before engaging in any further business as an electrical contractor. On April 22, 1996, Casumpang applied to the Local Executive Board for authorization to conduct an electrical contracting business. His request was denied on June 4, 1996.
The Local elects officers every three years as required by § 401(b) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 481(b).2 Casumpang was nominated for the position of Maui Division Director on September 8, 1997. His opponent was Rogelio "Roger" Tacdol. Casumpang won the election with 2017 votes, to Tacdol's 1999. Tacdol appealed the results, listing four irregularities in the counting of challenged ballots. The Local appointed an Election Investigating Committee to examine these challenges.
The Secretary-Treasurer of the Local notified Casumpang in writing that "you may not be eligible for the union office to which you have been nominated" because a doubt had been raised regarding whether Casumpang had been gainfully employed in violation of Article II, § 2.01 of the Local's constitution, as amended in 1997. Two days later, thirteen members of the Local filed written charges accusing Casumpang of performing work as an electrical contractor. He was also charged with filing electrical permit applications with the Department of Public Works, County of Maui, a violation of the Maui Trial Division's order.
Casumpang filed a written response to the charges before his hearing. He contended, among other things, that he had not been properly served with notice of his possible ineligibility for office until the last day for the filing of a response. He complained that " [t]his intentional and unprofessional tactic is but another in a long string of attempts to prevent me from assuming the post [to] which I have been duly elected by the membership of the Maui Division of the ILWU." Casumpang argued that Article II of the Local's constitution was invalid because it had not been properly ratified by the Local's membership. He also said that he had not been gainfully employed as an electrical contractor since June 4, 1996. He admitted that he had filed for electrical permits as favors to friends, without receiving compensation.
The Judicial Panel conducted a hearing on January 16, 1998 to consider evidence concerning charges filed on January 7, 1998. On January 17, 1998, the Judicial Panel rendered its decision. It found that Casumpang had "knowingly and deliberately violated Article II, Section 1 of the [Local's] Constitution on or about June 14, 1996, July 16, 1996, August 20, 1996, October 22, 1996, June 2, 1997, July 30, 1997, August 6, 1997, October 13, 1997, and October 27, 1997."
1. Effective June 14, 1996 [,] Casumpang is suspended as a member in good standing of ILWU Local 142 for a period of nine (9) consecutive years.
2. During the period of his suspension as a member in good standing of ILWU Local 142 (a period of 9 years) Casumpang shall neither be eligible for nomination [to], nor serve as [,] an officer of ILWU Local 142 or as an officer or steward of any of the units of ILWU Local 142.
4. Effective the date of this Decision and Order and continuing up to June 14, 2005 [,] Casumpang shall not be permitted to serve in any appointed full-time position in ILWU Local 142.
Casumpang appealed this decision before the Local Executive Board. He argued that the Judicial Panel had not been properly constituted and had no jurisdiction because the proposed amendments to the Local's constitution had not been ratified by the union membership. He argued that Article II, § 1 of the Local's constitution was ambiguous and ill-defined and had been misconstrued and misapplied by the Judicial Panel. Casumpang also maintained that he had been deprived of a full and fair hearing before the Judicial Panel.
McWilliams dismissed Casumpang's appeal on procedural grounds. Specifically, McWilliams stated that Casumpang had failed to appeal the decisions of the Judicial Panel and the Local Executive Board to the Local's membership pursuant to § 27.10.5 of the Local's constitution.3 In a footnote, McWilliams stated: "A decision on the merits of Brother Casumpang's appeal would have resulted in it [s] being denied as he failed to prove that there were procedural errors in the manner in which Local 142 handled the complaint against him."
Local 142 Constitution § 27.13 (1997).
Casumpang wrote to the President of Local 142 on August 25, 1998, requesting permission to appeal to the local union's membership. His request was rejected for failure to exhaust internal union remedies. One week later, McWilliams informed Casumpang that his appeal to the International Executive Board was rejected as untimely pursuant to Article IX, § 5 of the ILWU Constitution because it had been filed more than thirty days after McWilliams's decision.
In a letter signed by the Local's president, Casumpang's appeal to the Local membership was denied for failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The letter states that " [i]n election matters of this nature, the [S]secretary of [L]abor has exclusive jurisdiction, provided a timely appeal has been filed under 29 U.S.C. [§] 482(a)."
One day after the Local Executive Board had ordered a new election for the position of Maui Division Director, the Local's Secretary-Treasurer notified Casumpang in writing that he was ineligible to serve as a candidate for union office because he had not been a member in good standing for a period of two consecutive years prior to nomination. He was also informed that his name would not appear on the ballot in the upcoming re-election for Maui Division Director. The notice closed with the following admonition: "If you disagree with this determination, please be aware of the requirements of exhaustion of internal union remedies under Rule [ ]27 of the Financial Code."
Casumpang filed a complaint with the Department of Labor on October 9, 1998, alleging that violations of the LMRDA had occurred in the election of officers in the November 26, 1997 election, and in the rerun of that election conducted on January 30, 1998. On April 11, 1999, Lary F. Yud, the Chief of the Division of Enforcement of the Department of Labor, informed McWilliams that the Department of Labor had determined that "legal action is not warranted in this case." The Statement of Reasons accompanying the letter from Yud concludes: " [T]he complainant did not file a complaint with the Department of Labor within one calendar month of either exhausting available internal union remedies or within one calendar month of invoking available internal remedies without obtaining a final decision within three calendar months."
On September 23, 1998, Casumpang filed this action in the district court pursuant to § 102 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 412,4 against Local 142, its president, Eusebio Lapenia, Jr., and ten John Does (collectively, the "Local"). He alleged in his complaint that the Local removed him "from his elected position as Business Agent and suspended his membership . . . in retaliation for his exercise of his free-speech activity" contrary to the protection guaranteed to union members by Title I of the LMRDA § § 101(a) (1), (2), 29 U.S.C. § § 411(a) (1), (2).5
1. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants' conduct complained herein violated Section 101(a) (1) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. [§] 411(a) (1).
On October 19, 1998, Casumpang filed his first amended complaint. It is identical to the original complaint except that the surname of the president of Local 142 (Eusebio Lapenia, Jr.) is spelled correctly. Casumpang filed his second amended complaint on June 4, 1999. Casumpang alleged that he was "deprived of his membership with Local 142 [ ] with all the privileges that accompanied such membership" as a direct and proximate result of the Local's retaliation "for Plaintiff's exercise of his free-speech activity as a union member under 29 U.S.C. [§] 411."In the second amended complaint, Casumpang alleged specific facts to support his claim that his status as a member in good standing was taken away in retaliation for his criticism of the leadership of Local 142. Casumpang first alleged that in 1995 he expressed his disagreement with the leaders of Local 142 regarding their resolution of a dispute with Monarch Building Supply in Maui. After approximately four months of informational picketing by union members, Casumpang learned that Monarch Building Supply had offered to settle the matter for $50,000. Local leaders instructed Casumpang to accept $13,500. Casumpang questioned the leadership of Local 142 about the remaining amount. He refused to accept the lesser amount without consulting the pickets. The leadership of the Local, however, accepted the $13,500 offer without consulting the union members.
1. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants' conduct complained herein violated Section 101(a) (1) and (2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (1) and (2).
The Local filed a motion to dismiss Casumpang's complaint before he filed his second amended complaint. The Local asserted that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Local argued that a"post election challenge of this nature relating to the eligibility of a candidate is a claim arising under Title IV of the LMRDA which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor under 29 U.S.C. § 482, § 483."
The Local filed a reply brief, contending that the second amended complaint sought an order restoring Casumpang to the status of a "member in good standing." It argued that "Casumpang's suspension as a `member in good standing' affects only his right to serve in union office." Thus, the Local maintained, Casumpang's federal action "is in reality a challenge to the results of the February 10, 1998 election for the five business agent positions on Maui won by Bazarin, DeMello, Franco, Kennison, and Viernes." The Local asserted that " [s]uch a claim is cognizable only through a post election challenge of the 1998 Maui business agent contest " under Title IV. The Local renewed its request that the court dismiss Casumpang's complaint for lack of jurisdiction over a Title IV action challenging an election already conducted.
2. Casumpang failed to allege facts to support a claim under Title I because he failed to challenge the Local's determination that while serving as a business agent, he had also been gainfully employed as an electrical contractor in violation of Article II, § 1 of the Local's constitution.
1. The second amended complaint "excised all allegations relating to a [n] election and added allegations that were specific as to Mr. Casumpang's . . . exercise of his First Amendment rights."
2. " [T]he second amended complaint does not seek to undo the election."
[A]lthough Plaintiff no longer wishes to overturn the results of the [1998] rerun election, a course that would certainly run afoul of Title IV, the court finds that the substance of Plaintiff's complaint still involves Title IV because it revolves around over-turning the union's decision to suspend him as a member in good standing and effectively means reinstating his eligibility to hold union office. This relief -- having the Court reinstate him as a member in good standing -- would implicitly impact the 1998 rerun election results because it would be akin to having the Court declare that Plaintiff was improperly barred from running in that election, which determination is the exclusive province of the Secretary of Labor. See 29 U.S.C. § 483.
Finally, the district court said that " [e]ven if the Court construed Plaintiff's Title IV appeal to the Secretary of Labor as also involving Title I, the Secretary of Labor's determination that Plaintiff failed to exhaust internal union remedies in a timely fashion with regard to Plaintiff's Title IV claims would also apply to Plaintiff's Title I claims." In footnote 10 of its order, the district court noted that " [i]n its Statement of Reasons, the Department of Labor expressly stated that it did not consider the issue of whether Plaintiff's rights under Title I were violated by the suspension." (emphasis added).
Casumpang first contends that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Title IV governed his complaint. Casumpang maintains that his claim arose under Title I and that the district court therefore possessed subject matter jurisdiction. The Local counters that Casumpang lacks standing to bring a claim under Title I. The Local also contends that Casumpang's claim does not arise under Title I because he has failed to demonstrate a causal connection between his criticism of the Local leadership and the suspension of his membership in good standing. Finally, the Local argues that Casumpang presented insufficient evidence to rebut the affidavits it offered in support of its contention that Casumpang was stripped of his membership for violating Article II, § 1 of the Local's constitution. We address each of these arguments below.
The Local conceded at oral argument before us, however, that as a result of the suspension of Casumpang's membership in good standing, Casumpang can no longer participate in certain aspects of union governance. For example, Casumpang cannot nominate candidates for union office. He cannot vote in union elections. He cannot attend union membership meetings. He cannot participate in deliberations or vote on union business. These are precisely the rights protected under Title I of the LMRDA. LMRDA § § 101(a) (1), (2), 29 U.S.C. § § 411(a) (1), (2). Therefore, we reject the Local's assertion that the suspension of Casumpang's membership in good standing did not strip him of his rights protected under Title I.
Under Title IV, "every member [of a labor organization] in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate" in a union election. LMRDA § 401(e), 29 U.S.C.§ 481(e). A "member . . . may file a complaint with the Secretary [of Labor] . . . alleging the violation" of his or her right to be a candidate in a union election. LMRDA, § 402(a), 29 U.S.C. § 482(a). Pursuant to Title IV, " [t]he Secretary [of Labor] shall . . . if he finds probable cause to believe that a violation . . . has occurred . . . bring a civil action against the labor organization . . . to set aside the invalid election." LMRDA § 402(b), 29 U.S.C. § 482(b). A complaint filed with the Secretary of Labor is the exclusive means of resolving disputes governed by Title IV. LMRDA § 403, 29 U.S.C.§ 483.
In Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526 (1984), the Supreme Court held that"the exclusivity provision included in § 403 of Title IV plainly bars Title I relief when an individual union member challenges the validity of an election that has already been completed." Id. at 541; LMRDA § 403. In footnote 16, however, the Court explained the limited scope of § 403. "This does not necessarily mean that § 403 forecloses the availability of all postelection relief under Title I. The exclusivity provision of Title IV may not bar postelection relief for Title I claims or other actions that do not directly challenge the validity of an election already conducted." Id. at 541 n.16 (emphasis added).
Congress adopted the freedom of speech and assembly provision [§ 101(a) (2), 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2)] in order to promote union democracy. It recognized that democracy would be assured only if union members are free to discuss union policies and criticize the leadership without fear of reprisal. Congress also recognized that this freedom is particularly critical, and deserves vigorous protection, in the context of election campaigns. For it is in elections that members can wield their power, and directly express their approval or disapproval of the union leadership.
In Ross v. IBEW, 513 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff brought a tort action seeking recovery for damages allegedly inflicted against him by union officials during his campaign for a union position. Id. at 841. We concluded that the plaintiff's claim was not preempted by Title IV because the plaintiff did not "challenge [the election ] or seek any relief which would interfere with operation of the Local pursuant to the election," and the union did not "claim that the Secretary [of Labor acting pursuant to Title IV could] .. . compensate Ross for the harm he claim [ed] to have suffered." Id. at 842-43. We interpreted Congress's intent as follows:
As interpreted in Crowley and Ross, the impact of Title IV on a union member's right to seek money damages for a deprivation of his or her Title I rights balances"Congress ['s] clear [ ] inten [t] to lodge exclusive responsibility for post-election suits challenging the validity of a union election with the Secretary of Labor," Crowley, 467 U.S. at 544, with Congress's competing desire to "guarantee every union member equal rights to vote and otherwise participate in union decisions, free [ ] from unreasonable restrictions on speech and assembly, and proctect [ed] from improper discipline," id. at 536-37. Applying Ross and Crowley to Casumpang's second amended complaint, we must examine it to determine whether he has directly challenged the validity of the rerun election for Maui Division Director. Crowley at 541 n.16; Ross, 513 F.2d at 842-43.
Section 101(a) (2) of the LMRDA provides, among other things, that " [e]very member of any labor organization shall have the right to . . . express at meetings of the labor organization his views . . . upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of the meetings." To state a cause of action for a violation of § 101(a) (2), a union member must allege facts showing that: (1) he or she exercised the right to oppose union policies; (2) he or she was subjected to retaliatory action; and (3) the retaliatory action was "a direct result of his [or her] decision to express disagreement" with the union's leadership. Lynn, 488 U.S. at 354.
Within three months following Casumpang's protected activity at the union convention, the Local set aside the November 26, 1997 election won by Casumpang and initiated investigations regarding whether Casumpang had worked as an electrical contractor after being ordered not to do so. Casumpang was found guilty of working as an electrical contractor. As punishment, Casumpang was suspended as a member in good standing for a period of nine years. The suspension was made retroactive to January 14, 1996, thereby barring Casumpang from eligibility for the January 1998 rerun election because candidates for Local office must be members in good standing for a period of two years prior to being nominated. These facts satisfy the first two elements of a cause of action for a violation of LMRDA § 101(a) (2).
The Local argues that Casumpang has failed to demonstrate a causal connection between his criticism of the Local's leadership and the suspension of his status as a member in good standing of the union. In the related field of retaliatory actions by employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 704(a) as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), we have held that a causal link between protected activities and an adverse employment action "may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the employer's knowledge that the plaintiff engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment decision." Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1987). The relationship between a union local and its salaried business agent is closely analogous to the employer-employee relationship under Title VII. As an employee of a union, a business agent is protected from retaliation for his or her free speech activities. Reliance on circumstantial evidence is as necessary to prove a Title I retaliation claim as it is to prove a claim under Title VII. As with discrimination cases, a successful Title I action generally requires a showing of an employer's improper motive and "an employer's true motivations are particularly difficult to ascertain." Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 732 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). It is quite true that there is no direct evidence in the record that the Local suspended Casumpang's status as a member in good standing in retaliation for his critical comments against the Local's leadership. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence in the record, however, to support an inference that the ostensible basis for the suspension articulated by the Local was a mere pretext to mask its retaliatory intent to punish Casumpang for the expression of his views as a union member.
For example, prior to December 12, 1997, Article II,§ 1 of the Local's constitution read as follows:
Article II, § 1 was amended on December 12, 1997, however, to read as follows:
The proximity in time between the suspension of Casumpang's membership in good standing and the expression of his views at the union's convention in September, 1997, combined with the December 12, 1997 amendment to the Local's constitution, were sufficient to raise a rebuttable presumption of retaliation. " [W]hen `ruling on a jurisdictional motion involving factual issues which also go to the merits, the trial court should employ the standard applicable to a motion for summary judgment.' Under this standard,`the moving party should prevail only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.' " Id. at 1558 (quoting Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983)). Because "material jurisdictional facts" were in dispute, the district court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Casumpang's claim under Title I of the LMRDA.
Because the district court determined that Title IV governed Casumpang's claim, it appears to have conducted its analysis of the exhaustion issue pursuant to the requirements of Title IV rather than those set forth in Title I. The district court stated that Casumpang's "fail [ure] to exhaust internal union remedies in a timely fashion with regard to [Casumpang's] Title IV claims would also apply to [his] Title I claims." In fact, Titles I and IV of the LMRDA treat exhaustion differently. Title IV requires a union member to exhaust internal union remedies before filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. LMRDA § 402(a), 29 U.S.C.§ 482(a). Title IV provides, in relevant part:
LMRDA § 402(a) (1),(2); 29 U.S.C. § 482(a) (1),(2) (emphasis added).
No labor organization shall limit the right of any member thereof to institute an action in any court . . . . Provided, That any such member may be required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures (but not to exceed a four-month lapse of time) within such organization, before instituting legal . . . proceedings against such organization [ ] or any officer thereof . . . . LMRDA § 101(a) (4), 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (4) (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has determined that LMRDA § 101(a) (4) is "a statement of policy that . . . public tribunals . . . may in their discretion stay their hands for four months, while the aggrieved person seeks relief within the union." NLRB v. Indus. Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, 391 U.S. 418, 426 (1968) ("Marine Workers"). LMRDA § 101(a) (4) was "not intended to limit in any way the right of a union member . . . to file unfair labor practice charges against a union." Id. at 427 (emphasis added) (quoting 105 Cong. Rec. 18152 (1960) (statement of Rep. Griffin)). Under Title I, district courts retain broad discretion to require, or not to require, exhaustion depending on the reasonableness of such requirement in light of the facts of each case. Id. at 427-28.
Although Clayton involved an action brought pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act, its three-factor test also applies to actions brought under the LMRDA. See Maddalone v. Local 17, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 152 F.3d 178, 186 n.3 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Although the Court in Clayton articulated these factors in the context of [a ] § 301 claim, they are generally relevant to whether exhaustion should be required under the LMRDA."); Stevens v. Northwest Ind. Dist. Council, 20 F.3d 720, 733 n.31 (7th Cir. 1994) (" [G]enerally the Clayton considerations are proper guide-posts to aid the exercise of exhaustion-excusal discretion under Title I of the LMRDA.").
Where one of the three Clayton factors has not been satisfied, internal union remedies are deemed presumptively inadequate and the district court abuses its discretion by requiring exhaustion. See Clayton, 451 U.S. at 691, 692 (requiring exhaustion is error where the union can "neither reinstate [the complaining member] in his job, nor reactivate his grievance" because "these restrictions on the relief available . . . render [the internal union] procedures inadequate") (citation omitted)). The burden is on "the moving party . . . [to] establish the availability of adequate internal union remedies." Scoggins v. Boeing Co., 742 F.2d 1225, 1230 (9th Cir. 1984).
In this matter, the district court analyzed only the first factor articulated in Clayton. It rejected Casumpang's contention that his pursuit of internal remedies would have been futile merely because Casumpang would have to appeal to the same individuals who suspended him. The Local does not explain, and the record does not reveal, whether the internal grievance procedures maintained by Local 142 satisfy the two remaining Clayton factors. For example, more than two years have passed since Casumpang filed his original complaint in the district court. Assuming Casumpang has missed an internal deadline for filing a grievance with Local 142, nothing in the record demonstrates that the "internal union appeals procedures" maintained by Local 142 will permit Casumpang "to reactivate [his] grievance." Clayton, 451 U.S. at 689. Nor is it clear that the internal grievance procedures maintained by Local 142 are capable of awarding Casumpang "the full relief he seeks"; namely, reinstatement as a member in good standing and money damages for the Local's alleged violation of his rights under Title I. Id. Finally, it is unclear "whether exhaustion of internal [union grievance] procedures would unreasonably delay [Casumpang's] opportunity to obtain a judicial hearing on the merits of his claim." Id. We cannot determine, on the record before us, whether any grievance procedure maintained by Local 142 is likely to be completed within the four month time span provided for in LMRDA § 101(a) (4). We conclude the district court abused its discretion by ordering exhaustion without conducting an analysis under Clayton.
At the time, Article II, § 1 of the Local's constitution read in relevant part: "Elected . . . full-time officials of the Local, while on the Local payroll, shall not be permitted to hold any other gainful position unless authorized by the Executive Committee with the approval of the Local Executive Board."
LMRDA § 401(b) reads as follows:
After the decision [of the Judicial Panel ] is reached and recorded, the accused shall be called in and informed of the decision by the Chair of the Judicial Panel. If the accused is found guilty, the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall advise them [sic] of their rights of appeals [sic] to the Local Executive Board [,] to the Local membership [,] and to the International Union.
LMRDA § 412 reads:
LMRDA § § 101(a) (1), (2) provide:
" [T]he purpose of Title IV of the LMRDA is to provide free and democratic elections" while giving effect to the "countervailing policy . . . that unions should be free to conduct their affairs so far as possible and the government should not become excessively involved in union politics." Reich v. Local 89, Laborers' Int'l Union, 36 F.3d 1470, 1476 (9th Cir. 1994). Under Title IV:
LMRDA § 401(e), 29 U.S.C. § 481(e).
LMRDA § 402(a) (1), 29 U.S.C. § 482(a) (1).
LMRDA § 402(b), 29 U.S.C. § 482(b).
LMRDA § 403, 29 U.S.C. § 483.
"Title I is designed to guarantee every union member equal rights to vote and otherwise participate in union decisions, freedom from unreasonable restrictions on speech and assembly, and protection from improper discipline." Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526, 536-37 (1984); LMRDA § § 101(a) (1), (2), 29 U.S.C. § § 411(a) (1),(2). "Section 102 creates a federal cause of action for infringement of the rights provided in § 101. LMRDA [ ] § 102, 29 U.S.C. § 412." Murray v. Laborers Union Local 324, 55 F.3d 1445, 1453 n.9 (9th Cir. 1995).