United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Daniel O’donnell

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANIEL O’DONNELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-55985
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-06582 DSF (MRWx)
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United District Court
for the Central District of California
Hon. Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND,***
Senior District Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Daniel O’Donnell appeals from the district court’s
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., United States Senior District
Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
JAN 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
determination that his due process rights under the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 401, et seq., (“LMRDA”) were not
violated when he was terminated from his appointed position as a union business
representative for Plaintiff-Appellee United Brotherhood of Carpenters (“UBC”)
after serving as a juror on a three-member UBC internal trial committee.1
O’Donnell also contends that the UBC Constitution’s prohibition against “causing
dissension” was an unreasonable restriction on speech in the first place and
therefore violated the LMRDA on that basis alone. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
As an appointed union officer, O’Donnell is not protected under the
LMRDA for the loss of his position with the union. See USW Local 12-359 v.
USW Int’l (Steel Workers), 728 F.3d 1107, 1116 (9th Cir. 2013). Nor can
O’Donnell seek redress on grounds that his termination could have a “chilling
effect on other union members.” The LMRDA confers standing to “bring a civil
action in a district court” only on a “person whose rights secured by the provisions
of [the LMRDA] have been infringed by any violation” thereof. 29 U.S.C. § 412.
The LMRDA consequently confers no standing to sue based on the rights of
1 O’Donnell disagreed with the trial committee’s majority decision that Phil
Limon, the union member being prosecuted, had “caused dissension” within the
union. Limon’s related appeal, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, et al. v.
Phil Limon, Case No. 19-56047, is being adjudicated concurrently with this matter.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
others.
O’Donnell’s contention that he was terminated because of his “not guilty”
vote is also unsupported by the record. Ample undisputed evidence supports the
district court’s findings that O’Donnell acted improperly in the course of the
disciplinary proceedings independently of how he cast his vote.
Nor is O’Donnell’s challenge to the UBC’s constitutional prohibition against
“causing dissension” persuasive. The LMRDA “offers a considerably narrower
protection to speech than does the First Amendment.” Massey v. Inland Boatmen’s
Union of Pac., 886 F.2d 1188, 1190 (9th Cir. 1989). Member “speech can be
impaired by union rules if they are reasonable,” id., and rules prohibiting
dissension are reasonable in the union context. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Int’l Ass’n of
Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 854 F.2d 1169, 1171, 1174 (9th
Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --