Corrigan v. New York City District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America

Background

Peter V. Corrigan, a journeyman carpenter and member of the New York City (High Rise) Concrete Carpenters, Local 212, was elected as a delegate to the District Council’s Delegate Body in 2011 and became a Local 212 business agent in 2016. He alleged that the New York City District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America retaliated against him after he opposed a proposed change to the wage agreement with General Contractors Association employers.

The proposal ultimately approved by the Delegate Body would allow a blanket $15-per-hour pay cut for journeymen on certain work. Corrigan alleged that he opposed the proposal, told union leaders that he and other members opposed it, and voted against it. He further alleged that the District Council investigated him for violating job-referral rules, suspended him as a business agent, and terminated him. The District Council’s Office of the Inspector General and later reviews concluded that he had made improper job referrals, although one reviewer identified inconsistencies and recommended clarifying the rules.

Corrigan also alleged that the District Council had a broader history of intimidating or removing people who challenged its leadership. He brought claims under Sections 101(a)(2), 102, and 609 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The District Council moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim.

Section 101(a)(2) claim

Section 101(a)(2) protects union members’ rights to meet, assemble, and express views about union activities. The court explained that the provision protects speech in the union’s democratic process, particularly political speech directed to other union members, rather than complaints made only to union leaders or supervisors.

The court also explained that removal from appointed union employment, such as a business-agent position, generally is not protected by this provision. A narrow exception may apply when the removal is part of a deliberate and broader effort to suppress dissent within the union. To use that exception, a plaintiff must allege facts showing more than an isolated act of retaliation, including facts suggesting that the plaintiff represented a broader movement among union members.

The court held that Corrigan had not adequately pleaded protected speech. His allegations showed that he spoke directly with Geiger and another Local 212 officer and voted against the proposal, but did not show that he communicated his opposition to other union members. The court also held that he had not adequately alleged a broader scheme to suppress dissent. The allegations about earlier conduct, the treatment of two investigators, and punishment of other carpenters were too disconnected, broad, or unsupported by specific facts. The court further found that the allegations about the Independent Monitor’s investigation and approval of Corrigan’s termination undermined the claimed suppression scheme.

The court dismissed Corrigan’s Section 101(a)(2) claim.

Section 609 claim

Section 609 prohibits a labor organization from fining, suspending, expelling, or otherwise disciplining a member for exercising rights protected by the Act. The court applied the same general rule and exception concerning removal from appointed union employment.

Because Corrigan had not adequately alleged that he engaged in protected speech or that his termination was part of a deliberate scheme to suppress dissent, the court dismissed his Section 609 claim as well.

Disposition

The court granted the District Council’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.