Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingfiduciaryfiduciary duty
fiduciaryfiduciary duty

Related Cases

McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 29 N.E. 517
View Case »
United States v. Moyer, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 2266906
View Case »
Gentry v. Texas, 490 U.S. 1102, 109 S.Ct. 2458 (Mem), 104 L.Ed.2d 1013
View Case »
Laskey v. International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW), 638 F.2d 954, 106 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2425, 2 Employee Benefits Cas. 1262
View Case »
In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation, 910 F.Supp. 696, 1995-2 Trade Cases P 71,226
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2014 WL 11460503

Facts

On August 29, 2011, the IBT found that Local 630 officials Kenny, Moreno, and Guillory had breached their fiduciary duties and embezzled funds based on excessive restaurant bills with no proper union purpose. The IRB recommended charges against them, which were upheld by the IBT after a hearing. The officials were found to have caused significant financial losses to the Local through inappropriate expenditures over several years.

On August 29, 2011, the IBT found that Local 630 officials Kenny, Moreno, and Guillory had breached their fiduciary duties and embezzled funds based on excessive restaurant bills with no proper union purpose.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the IBT's findings of embezzlement and breaches of fiduciary duty against Kenny, Moreno, and Guillory were adequate and supported by sufficient evidence.

The main legal issue was whether the IBT's findings of embezzlement and breaches of fiduciary duty against Kenny, Moreno, and Guillory were adequate and supported by sufficient evidence.

Rule

The court applied an extremely deferential standard of review to the IRB's findings, requiring that the IRB's decision be upheld unless it was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

The court applied an extremely deferential standard of review to the IRB's findings, requiring that the IRB's decision be upheld unless it was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Analysis

The court found that the IRB's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the nature and amount of the expenditures made by the officials. The IRB determined that the officials had failed to demonstrate a legitimate union purpose for their expenses and that their actions constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties.

The court found that the IRB's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the nature and amount of the expenditures made by the officials.

Conclusion

The court granted the IRB's application, affirming that the IBT's decision regarding the officials was not inadequate and upheld the penalties imposed on them.

The court granted the IRB's application, affirming that the IBT's decision regarding the officials was not inadequate and upheld the penalties imposed on them.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Independent Review Board (IRB), as the court upheld its findings against the Local 630 officials for embezzlement and breaches of fiduciary duty.

The prevailing party was the Independent Review Board (IRB), as the court upheld its findings against the Local 630 officials for embezzlement and breaches of fiduciary duty.

You must be