Union Member Required To Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Suing His Union

Paulino v. New York Printing Pressman, ___F.3d___(2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2008)  involves certain important principles under the LMRDA. Specifically, that a union can discipline its members, union members are entitled to a hearing, but that they must first exhaust administrative remedies. As the court explained:

Paulino also claims that the Union unlawfully suspended him
without a full and fair hearing in violation of the LMRDA. The
LMRDA requires that no member can be suspended from a union,
except for failure to pay dues, without written notice, a
reasonable time to prepare his defense, and a full and fair
hearing. 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5). But, before legal proceedings
can be brought, any union member can be required to exhaust
reasonable hearing procedures within his or her union. 29 U.S.C.
§ 411(a)(4). The requirement that a plaintiff exhaust internal
union remedies under the LMRDA lies within the court's
discretion. Maddalone v. Local 17, 152 F.3d 178, 186 (2d Cir.
1998) (citations omitted). The district court found that Paulino
had failed to exhaust his internal union remedies, noting that,
while Paulino did write letters to the Union president and to the
International Union, none of these letters complained about not
being given a full and fair hearing prior to his alleged
suspension. Paulino, 2007 WL 1345234, at *6, 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 33885, at *21-*24. The district court was correct in
finding Paulino has not exhausted his internal union remedies:
Paulino has never raised his claim that he was wrongfully
suspended from the Union with the Union. Because there is no
evidence that the Union officials in this case are so hostile to
Paulino that there is no chance the Union would provide Paulino
with a fair hearing, that the Union's internal procedures are
inadequate, or that exhaustion of his remedies within the Union
structure would unreasonably delay his opportunity to obtain a
judicial hearing, the district court correctly granted summary
judgment because Paulino has not exhausted his union remedies.
See Schermerhorn v. Local 100, Transport Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, 91 F.3d 316, 325 (2d Cir. 1996). Paulino's
argument that going through the administrative process would have
been futile is unsupported.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein