United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., Dba Brown Shoe Company (517 U.S. 544)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 13, 1996 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 517 U.S. 544 · 116 S. Ct. 1529
- Decided
- May 13, 1996
- Term
- October Term 1995
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act or Act), 102 Stat. 890, 29 U. S. C. §2101 et seq., obligates certain employers to give workers or their union 60 days’ notice before a plant closing or mass layoff. If an employer fails to give the notice, the employees may sue for backpay for each day of the violation, and, in the alternative, the union is ostensibly authorized to sue on their behalf. See North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas, 515 U. S. 29 (1995); Part II, infra. Permitting a union to sue under the Act on behalf of its employee-members raises a question of standing. In Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333 (1977), we described a three-prong test for an association’s standing to sue based on injury to one of its members. The third element, at issue here, would bar such a suit when “the claim asserted [or] the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Id., at 343. Relying on Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 (1975), Hunt held that “individual participation” is not normally necessary when an association seeks prospective or injunctive relief for its members, but indicated that such participation would be required in an action for damages to an association’s members, thus suggesting that an association’s action for damages running solely to…
Excerpt of a 26,556-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.