Skip to main content

Solis v. Laborer's International Union of North America, Local 368

D. Haw.April 29, 2010No. Civ. 09-00512 ACK-BMK
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Alan C. Kay
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Hawaii

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court adopted the magistrate's findings, affirming denial of respondent's motion to quash the subpoenas but also affirming a protective order that limited disclosure of certain personal information. Local 368 was required to comply with subpoenas for membership and election records, but personal telephone numbers received limited protection.

What This Ruling Means

**Union Required to Turn Over Records, But Some Personal Info Protected** This case involved a dispute over union records. The U.S. Department of Labor issued subpoenas demanding that Laborers International Union Local 368 hand over membership lists and election records as part of an investigation. The union tried to block these subpoenas, arguing they shouldn't have to provide the information. The court sided mostly with the Department of Labor. It ruled that the union must comply with the subpoenas and provide the membership and election records the government requested. However, the court also put some limits in place to protect union members' privacy. Specifically, the court issued a protective order that restricted how personal telephone numbers could be shared or used. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that government agencies can access union records when investigating potential violations of labor law, which helps ensure unions operate properly. At the same time, it demonstrates that courts will try to balance transparency with protecting workers' personal information. Union members can expect that while their union's records may be subject to government review, their most sensitive personal details should receive some protection during investigations.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.