Patrick v. Local 51, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO

Background

Rita Patrick alleged that Local 51, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and Shanequa Johnson-Duggins, individually and as president of Local 51, improperly suspended her from her position as shop steward after she raised concerns about the handling of union funds. Patrick filed an amended complaint after an earlier order dismissed several proposed claims, including a fiduciary-duty claim under Section 501(b) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and claims concerning provisions of the union constitution.

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which permits a court to remove from a pleading matter that is insufficient, redundant, immaterial, irrelevant to the issues, or scandalous. The court explained that such motions are generally disfavored and require a strong reason for striking allegations.

Rulings on the challenged allegations

The defendants sought to strike three categories of allegations:

- References to Section 501 of the LMRDA; - Paragraphs 9(c), 9(f), 9(j), 9(l), 9(m), and 12 in their entirety; and - Portions of paragraphs 18, 21, 23, 25, 32, 50, and 57.

The court struck the reference in the introductory paragraph stating that Patrick brought the action for the benefit of all union members under Section 501(b) of the LMRDA. The court held that the reference violated Judge Román’s earlier order, which had dismissed Patrick’s Section 501(b) claim. Because the claim had been dismissed, the court found that supporting evidence would not be admissible, the allegation had no bearing on the remaining claims, and the allegation could prejudice the defendants and confuse prospective jurors.

The court denied the request to strike paragraphs 9(c), 9(f), 9(j), 9(l), and 9(m). Although those provisions of the union constitution were not related to Patrick’s revised claim and evidence supporting them would not be admissible, the defendants did not show that leaving them in the complaint would cause prejudice.

The court struck paragraph 12 in full. That paragraph described union officers as occupying positions of trust and owing fiduciary duties concerning union funds. The court found that paragraph 12 appeared to refer to the fiduciary-duty claim that Judge Román had dismissed, had no bearing on the remaining claims, and could confuse prospective jurors.

The court denied the request to strike the challenged portions of paragraphs 18, 21, 23, 25, 32, 50, and 57. Those allegations concerned payments and Patrick’s belief that the payments were unauthorized. The court agreed that evidence proving the payments actually were unauthorized would not be admissible under the earlier ruling, but held that the allegations were relevant to Patrick’s claims that she was suspended because she expressed her belief that the payments were unauthorized. The defendants had not shown sufficient prejudice because the case would focus on Patrick’s belief and speech, not on whether the payments were in fact unauthorized.

The court also denied the request to strike language in paragraph 50 asserting that Johnson-Duggins had failed or refused to hold membership and executive-board members as required by the Local 51 constitution. Even if the language was vague, the defendants did not show that it would harm them publicly or influence a jury.

Disposition

Judge Paul E. Davison granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to strike. The final sentence of the introductory paragraph referring to Section 501(b) of the LMRDA and paragraph 12 in full were stricken. The other challenged allegations were not stricken. Patrick was ordered to file and serve an amended complaint without the stricken portions by March 1, 2022, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion.