JONATHAN BARGER v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA; INDIANA/KENTUCKY/OHIO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS; LOCAL UNION 2, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA - Articles

All Content

JONATHAN BARGER v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA; INDIANA/KENTUCKY/OHIO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS; LOCAL UNION 2, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jun 25, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED and ON BRIEF: Stephen E. Imm, FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Brian F. Quinn, DECARLO & SHANLEY, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Paul T. Berkowitz, PAUL T. BERKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters and Local Union 2, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Brian F. Quinn, DECARLO & SHANLEY, P.C., Washington, D.C., Kristin Seifert Watson, CLOPPERT, LATANICK, SAUTER & WASHBURN, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Paul T. Berkowitz, PAUL T. BERKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, Catherine Harshman, HUNTER CARNAHAN SHOUB BYARD & HARSHMAN, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters and Local Union 2, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. At least in part out of self-interest, Jonathan Barger, a union member, accused other union members of overbilling a client. Barger’s union prosecuted him under the union’s constitution, so Barger filed suit against the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“UBC”), Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters (“IKORCC”), and UBC Local Union 2 (“Local 2”) under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), alleging that his speech was protected. The district court granted the unions’ motions for summary judgment. The question before us today is whether Barger’s speech was protected as a matter of “union concern.” We find that Barger’s speech was protected, and REVERSE in part, AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: