Cunningham v. Local 30, International Union of Operating Engineers

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a Section 101(a) claim requires a direct attack on the right to vote by discriminatory means and that allegations that a particular group of union members were negatively impacted by an equally applicable voting policy is insufficient to state a claim
• “New York courts have recognized a [state law] duty of fair representation owed by public sector unions.”
• “[A] claim under Section [411(a)(1)] must ‘allege the denial of some privilege or right to vote which the union has granted to others.’”
• “Courts have held that they lack subject matter jurisdiction over hybrid claims by public employees because a public employer is not an ‘employer’ within the meaning of the LMRA.”
• “Courts have held that they lack subject matter jurisdiction over hybrid claims by public employees because a public employer is not an ‘employer’ within the meaning of the LMRA.” (citing cases)
• “Courts have held that they lack subject matter jurisdiction over hybrid claims by public employees because a public employer is not an ‘employer’ within the meaning of the LMRA.” (internal citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).