Alaska Employment Law

Employers or unions hit with EEOC charges or similar litigation are understandably upset about the legal bills that follow.  A recent 8th Circuit case touched on retaliation charges that flowed from a union’s disclosure of the fees it incurred in defending EEOC discrimination charges filed against it (for alleged referral violations) by five of its members. 

The union not only discussed the bills at a membership meeting, but also posted the legal bills.  It justified both actions by saying that its Bylaws required membership approval of legal costs.  After the members filed retaliation charges, the union blacked out the members’ names on the posted bills.

The District Court dismissed the retaliation claim, but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded for a trial.  The appeals court found evidence of pretext in a) the union’s reversal of position on disclosures (blackening the names) and in b) ”the degree of [the union’s] disclosures,”  meaning, presumably, the lack of any justification for identifying the members’ names when seeking membership approval for the legal expenses.

Franklin v. SWM Local 2, ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. May 13, 2009)

H/T: Daily Developments in EEO Law