Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Guzman v. Bevona
Citations: 791 F. Supp. 80; 141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2351; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5600; 1992 WL 100495Docket: No. 92 Civ. 1500 (RPP)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York; April 23, 1992; Federal District Court
Carlos Guzman filed a verified application for leave to sue under 29 U.S.C. § 501(b) against Gus Bevona, the Union President, and other members of the Executive Board, alleging various violations related to his rights as a union member. The Union itself is not named as a defendant. Guzman's amended complaint details actions taken by him in January 1991, including circulating a salary list he deemed excessive, protesting a rise in union dues, and being denied access to a shop stewards meeting where he was subsequently ejected. He also alleges he was surveilled by private detectives hired by the Union after he sent an open letter to Bevona expressing his concerns. Guzman asserts four main causes of action: 1. Violation of his rights to free expression under § 101(a)(2) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). 2. Misappropriation of union funds for personal agendas by the defendants in breach of their fiduciary duties under § 501(a) of the LMRDA. 3. Breach of the Union’s International Constitution and the Local’s Constitution in violation of § 301(a) of the LMRDA. 4. Denial of access to the shop stewards meeting, also a violation of § 101(a)(2). Additional claims include common law breach of fiduciary duty, intentional interference with contractual relations, and tortious infliction of emotional distress. Defendants contest Guzman’s standing to sue, arguing that a § 501 action would not benefit the Union and that his allegations fail to substantiate a § 501 claim. They assert that Guzman’s surveillance was justified due to suspicions of his associations with opposing interests. Despite these claims, the court finds that Guzman, as a longtime union member and shop steward, is a proper party to bring a § 501 claim. The court acknowledges that Guzman has raised reasonable grounds for his claims, particularly regarding the alleged misuse of union funds. The court grants Guzman leave to sue, emphasizing that the complaint clearly separates the claims and adequately demonstrates the basis for the § 501 action. The decision is supported by precedent, confirming that the claims are valid and not merely an indictment of the defendants' conduct in office. Leave to sue is granted.