Jose Serna, et al v. TWU of America AFL-CIO, No. 15-10328 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10328 Document: 00513586607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 15-10328 July 11, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOSE SERNA; MARY RICHARDSON; ROBERTO CRUZ; SANTOS CORDERO; SARI MADERA; RALPH ANDERSON; WARREN LAMBERT; GREG HOFER; KENT HAND, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA AFL-CIO, Union, Defendant - Appellee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13-CV-2469 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * We have reviewed the record, read the briefs, and heard arguments from both parties. We conclude that the two questions presented in this appeal are Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-10328 Document: 00513586607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 No. 15-10328 governed by controlling Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent. See Ry. Employes’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225, 238 (1956) (allowing union shop provision of the Railway Labor Act (RLA)); Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 774 (1961) (allowing opt-out requirement under the RLA); Shea v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 154 F.3d 508, 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1998) (allowing opt-out requirement under the RLA). 1 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We note that when Serna filed his complaint, the Transport Workers Union of America required dissenting non-members to annually renew their objection in order to avoid paying support to the union’s political activities. We expressly held in Shea—which was decided fifteen years prior to Serna’s complaint—that the First Amendment prohibits a union from requiring objectors to annually renew their objections. Because the union no longer requires an annual opt-out, Shea obliges us to uphold the union’s current opt-out policy. 1 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
