The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, February 20, 1996
Decision: Monday, May 13, 1996
Issues: Judicial Power, Standing to Sue, Statutory Standing

Advocates

Laurence E. Gold (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Alan Jenkins (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)
Lan Jenkins (On behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)
Thomas C. Walsh (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 filed suit alleging that Brown Group, Inc. began to lay off workers in connection with the closing of one of its plants, Brown Shoe Company, before giving the union the closing notice required by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act). The union sought backpay for each of its affected members. Under modern associational standing doctrine, an organization may sue to redress its members' injuries when: 1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; 2) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and 3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. The District Court dismissed the compliant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that "[e]ach union member who wishes to recover WARN Act damages from Brown Shoe must participate in the suit so that his or her right to damages can be determined and the quantum of damages can be calculated by the court on the basis of particularized proof." Therefore, the court concluded that the suit was barred because the union failed to meet the third part of the test for asserting associational standing.

Question

May a labor union sue on behalf of its members over alleged violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous decision, authored by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act grants unions authority to sue for damages on behalf of their members. Therefore, the union had standing to bring such an action. Justice Souter wrote that the court's ruling was based on previous decisions that state that "an organization may sue to redress its members' injuries even without a showing of injury to the association itself."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for United Food Workers, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 29 U.S.C. 2101
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, United Food Workers v. Brown Group Inc., 517 U.S. 544 (1996),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_340/>
(last visited ).