Siddiqui v. Keating

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RAZA SIDDIQUI,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 24 CV 564

PATRICK KEATING, CHARLES BRAICO, Judge Manish S. Shah

NABET-CWA, and COMMUNICATIONS

WORKERS OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Raza Siddiqui was elected president of his local union in 2022.

Defendant NABET-CWA placed the local under trusteeship on the petition of

defendant Patrick Keating, another union member and Siddiqui’s political opponent.

Siddiqui successfully challenged the trusteeship, and he was reinstated as the local

president in August 2023. The local then voted to pay Siddiqui’s attorney’s fees for

the litigation. Less than two months later, Keating petitioned defendant

Communications Workers of America to place the local under a second trusteeship.

The CWA executive board, including defendant Charlie Braico, voted in favor of a

trusteeship and Siddiqui was removed from office again. NABET also overturned the

local’s decision to pay the attorney’s fees and ordered Siddiqui to reimburse the local.

The CWA upheld this decision. When Siddiqui did not repay the fees, NABET

suspended his union membership. Siddiqui brings claims under Title I of the Labor

Management Reporting and Disclosure Act alleging these actions were in retaliation

for suing to dissolve the first trusteeship and political expression. He also brings a

tortious interference claim against Braico and Keating. Defendants move to dismiss.

I. Legal Standards

When reviewing a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,

a court accepts all well-pled allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences

in favor of the plaintiff. Gociman v. Loyola Univ. of Chi., 41 F.4th 873, 881 (7th Cir.

2022). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead ‘only enough facts to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

II. Facts

Plaintiff Raza Siddiqui was elected president of his local union,

Communications Workers of America Local 54041, in March 2022. [39] ¶¶ 5, 13.1

Siddiqui opposed the Solidarity Slate, which included defendant Patrick Keating and

defendant Charlie Braico. [39] ¶¶ 13–15. Braico, along with other past local

1 Bracketed numbers refer to entries on the district court docket. Referenced page numbers

are taken from the CM/ECF header placed at the top of filings. When a document has

numbered paragraphs, I cite to the paragraph, for example [39] ¶ 1. The facts are largely

taken from Siddiqui’s amended complaint, [39]. The parties attach evidence outside of the

pleadings to their briefs. Generally, I cannot consider such evidence on a motion to dismiss.

See Jackson v. Curry, 888 F.3d 259, 263 (7th Cir. 2018). But Siddiqui is permitted to attach

exhibits for the first time in opposition to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of

Greater Chi. & Nw. Ind., 786 F.3d 510, 528 n.8 (7th Cir. 2015) (“a party opposing a Rule

12(b)(6) motion may submit materials outside the pleadings to illustrate the facts the party

expects to be able to prove”). Defendants also attached exhibits to their briefing, [46-1] and

[48-1], which Siddiqui relies on in his response brief. See [51] at 15; [52-1] at 12, 15. I consider

this to be adopting these exhibits as if he were submitting them himself. Defendants’ other

exhibits are not so clearly central to Siddiqui’s claim as to make consideration of them

appropriate at this stage.

presidents, endorsed Keating, who ran for treasurer, and campaigned against

Siddiqui. [39] ¶ 15. Siddiqui and his slate defeated the Solidarity Slate. [39] ¶ 16.

During the election and after, Siddiqui engaged in political speech and

association against the Solidarity Slate. [39] ¶ 17. Siddiqui alleges that in response

to this political activity, defendants launched and facilitated a retaliation campaign

against him by: twice removing Siddiqui from office, using union resources to suspend

Siddiqui’s membership, and trying to impose over $90,000 in personal liability on

Siddiqui. [39] ¶ 18.

Upon a petition signed by Keating and others, the local was placed into a

trusteeship in September 2022, removing Siddiqui from office. [39] ¶ 21; 22-cv-5732,

[9]. Siddiqui and other union members sued under Title III of the LMRDA to

challenge the trusteeship. See Siddiqui v. Nat’l Ass’n of Broad. Emps. & Technicians-

Commc’ns Workers of Am., 132 F.4th 530, 531 (7th Cir. 2025).

While the litigation was pending, various members of the Braico political

machine threatened and intimidated those challenging Braico’s control. [39] ¶¶ 30–

32. Braico’s supporters specifically targeted Siddiqui by calling him derogatory

names, referring to his executive board in demeaning terms, and thwarting his

attempts to remain in good standing with the Union. [39] ¶¶ 33–34, 44–52.

In December 2022, a local staff member emailed the CWA and Braico that she

had been holding a dues check for Siddiqui and asked if she should allocate the

payment anywhere. [39] ¶ 54. Braico responded that he had spoken with the

NABET’s general counsel and determined that, “[w]e definitely do not want to

credit any dues payments for Raza during the period April 1, 2022, until the date

we received the first cashier’s check ($1200 – dated October 7, 2022) but received in

the office several days later via certified mail. His dues records . . . should reflect no

dues paid in April, May, or June. Once he went 90 days or more with no dues

payment, he was automatically suspended. So effective July 1, 2022, he was

automatically suspended from membership in good standing.” [39] ¶¶ 55–56

(emphasis in original email). The Sector Executive Council later declared that

Siddiqui was ineligible to be a delegate at the NABET Sector Conference and CWA

Convention because he failed to pay dues for a period of six months in 2022, and for

another three months in 2023, so was not in good standing continuously for at least

one year. [39] ¶ 58.

In August 2023, the court dissolved the first trusteeship, after previously

finding the trusteeship had been imposed in bad faith. See Siddiqui v. NABET-CWA,

No. 22 C 5732, 2022 WL 17487814, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2022); and Siddiqui, No.

22 C 5732, Dkt. No. 80 (N.D. Ill.). Siddiqui was reinstated to his position, and the

local voted to pay the attorney’s fees related to that litigation on the grounds that it

was a common benefit to all union members. [39] ¶¶ 60, 64; [39-2]. Siddiqui was not

involved in any actions to approve this payment. [39] ¶ 64.

In October 2023, Keating successfully petitioned the CWA to place the local

under trusteeship a second time, removing Siddiqui from office again. [39] ¶¶ 5, 26–

27. Siddiqui alleges that Keating’s reason for seeking a second trusteeship—financial

mismanagement—was pretextual and false. [39] ¶¶ 23–25. Siddiqui admits that the

local ran a deficit under his leadership but alleges that a deficit was not abnormal

and that some of the record-keeping issues raised were attributable to Keating

himself. Id.

After the imposition of the second trusteeship, Keating successfully petitioned

the Sector Executive Council to overturn the local’s decision to pay Siddiqui’s

attorney’s fees. [52-4]. The Council ordered that the legal fees should be sought from

the law firm, and if that was refused, then Siddiqui would be responsible for full

restitution. Id. Siddiqui appealed to the CWA president and executive board, both of

which upheld the decision. [39-2] at 2. When Siddiqui didn’t pay the fees, NABET

revoked his good standing with the union. [39] ¶ 63; [39-2].

Siddiqui filed this lawsuit seeking to dissolve the second trusteeship as

improperly imposed under Title III of the LMRDA and seeking damages under Title

I from both the first and second trusteeship. [1]. His original complaint was dismissed

for failure to state a claim, and his claims related to the first trusteeship were

precluded by the first litigation. [37]. In his amended complaint, Siddiqui seeks

recovery for the alleged retaliation under Title I of the LMRDA and for tortious

interference with prospective economic gain. [39]. Defendants move to dismiss his

amended complaint. [45], [47].

III. Analysis

A. Title I

Title I of the LMRDA “provides union members with an exhaustive ‘Bill of

Rights’ enforceable in federal court.” Loc. No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving,

Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526,

536 (1984); 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2). “Title I is designed to guarantee every union

member . . . freedom from unreasonable restrictions on speech and assembly, and

protection from improper discipline.” Id. at 536–37; see also Vought v. Wisconsin

Teamsters Joint Council No. 39, 558 F.3d 617, 621 (7th Cir. 2009).

To state a claim under Title I, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) he engaged in

protected expression; (2) he was subjected to an adverse action reasonably likely to

deter future expression; and (3) that action was caused by the protected expression.”

Marshall v. Loc. 701 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 387 Fed. App’x 623, 627–28 (7th Cir.

2010) (citing Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l. Ass’n v. Lynn, 488 U.S. 347, 354 (1989)).

On this motion, defendants do not contest that Siddiqui’s political actions and

speech opposing the existing structure and suing to dissolve the first trusteeship were

expressions protected under Title I. Siddiqui alleges that defendants took three

adverse actions against him: removed him from elected office as part of the second

trusteeship, declared that Siddiqui repay attorney’s fees related to the first litigation,

and revoked his good standing with the union. All three of these actions can be

considered adverse and reasonably likely to deter future expression. Defendants

argue that Siddiqui has not alleged that any of these actions were caused by his

protected expressions.

Removal from Office

Siddiqui’s claim related to his removal from office as part of the second

trusteeship was previously dismissed because Siddiqui did not adequately allege the

second trusteeship was improperly imposed. [37] at 10–11. Siddiqui renews his claim

arguing that his removal from office can support a claim regardless of the validity of

the trusteeship under Title III. [51] at 4–11.

When a violation of rights protected by Title I is alleged to have resulted from

the establishment of a trusteeship, a plaintiff must also plead that the trusteeship

was unlawfully established. See Boardman v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 89 F.4th 596,

602 (7th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2564 (2024) (“And because Boardman’s

Title I claims rest on the assertion that the trusteeship was invalid, her remaining

claims fail as well.”). Under Title III, “if at least one proper purpose for imposing it

exists, a claim that the trusteeship was retaliatory fails,” even if the union imposing

the trusteeship also had an impermissible motive. Id. at 600 (citing Serafinn v. Local

722, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 597 F.3d 908, 914 (7th Cir. 2010) (“A mixed-motive

theory of liability is never proper in a suit brought under the [Act].”)).

Siddiqui argues that a claim under Title I related to a trusteeship need not

satisfy the Title III standard for when a trusteeship is improper and is subject to a

different standard to show causation. [51] at 4–11. Siddiqui relies on Sheet Metal

Workers’ International Association v. Lynn, 488 U.S. 347 (1989), which held that Title

I rights do not “fall by the wayside whenever a trusteeship is imposed” and that the

removal of an elected union official by a trustee administering a trusteeship can still

violate Title I. 488 U.S. at 356, 358.

While there are some factual similarities between Lynn and this case, there

are significant differences. In Lynn, the trustee of a local, in the course of

administering the trusteeship, removed the plaintiff from his elected business agent

position because he spoke in opposition to the trustee’s dues proposal. 488 U.S. at

349–50. The adverse act did not relate to the establishment of the trusteeship and

did not call the motives behind the trusteeship into question. Indeed, the trusteeship

in Lynn was presumed valid. Id. at 356. Siddiqui’s removal from office is not so easily

disentangled from the validity of the trusteeship. See [39] ¶¶ 5, 20. Siddiqui was

removed when the trusteeship was imposed, rather than by a trustee administering

it. See [39] ¶ 20–22; [48-2]. And, despite no longer pursuing a Title III claim here,

Siddiqui continues to challenge the validity of the trusteeship. See [39] ¶ 22 (“The

second trusteeship, which Plaintiff does not seek to dissolve, was also brought in bad

faith.”).

This case is more like Boardman v. Service Employees International Union, 89

F.4th 596 (7th Cir. 2023) where a local president “was removed from her position as

President by operation of the trusteeship.” See 89 F.4th at 599. The point of the

trusteeship was to take over administration of the local union from the local

president. See id.; see also Maher v. Int’l B’hood of Elec. Workers, 15 F.3d 711, 714

(7th Cir. 1994) (“A trusteeship necessarily involves a curtailment of the power of a

local union and its members and officers.”); Farrell v. Int’l B’hood of Teamsters, 888

F.2d 459, 462 (6th Cir. 1989) (“The whole point of a trusteeship is that someone has

judged that control of the local by a central authority is necessary.”). That Siddiqui’s

removal was discretionary, [39] ¶ 22, does not disconnect it from the validity of the

trusteeship. Siddiqui’s removal can only be improper if the second trusteeship was

also improper.

When a plaintiff maintains that a parent union is violating their Title I rights

by means of a trusteeship, they cannot sue to protect those rights without addressing

the question of the trusteeship’s validity. Farrell, 888 F.2d at 461 (considering this

question after Lynn). A valid trusteeship does not excuse the dismissal of an elected

officer in reprisal for exercising his Title I free speech rights. Lynn, 488 U.S. at 356–

58. But it does not follow that when an aggrieved union member challenges the

validity of a trusteeship, they no longer need bother with the procedures prescribed

in Title III. Farrell, 888 F.2d at 462.

Siddiqui also argues that Title III remedies do not supplant Title I under 29

U.S.C. § 466, which establishes the “rights and remedies provided by [Title III] shall

be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies at law or in equity.” [52-1] at

9. Siddiqui is right that if he could show that the trusteeship, inclusive of his removal,

was improperly imposed, he could also seek Title I damages. But that does not mean

that he may seek Title I damages without showing the trusteeship was imposed in

bad faith when the adverse action calls the trusteeship’s validity into question.

Siddiqui has once again pled that the CWA executive board had at least one

permissible ground for establishing the second trusteeship—financial

mismanagement. [39] ¶ 24; see 29 U.S.C. § 462 (“financial malpractice” is a

permissible purpose for imposing a trusteeship). Thus, the trusteeship was valid

under Title III, and by extension, so was Siddiqui’s removal from office.

Even if I were to accept that Siddiqui need not show the trusteeship was

invalid under Title III, he would still need to plausibly allege that the CWA’s choice

to remove him from office was in retaliation for his protected activities. He has not

remedied the deficiencies of his first complaint relating to causation. While Siddiqui

alleges that Keating and Braico had retaliatory motives when seeking and voting for

his removal, [39] ¶¶ 18–20, 23, he does not allege that any of the other executive

board members also voted to remove him from office in bad faith. He does not allege

that the other board members knew that Keating’s allegations of financial

mismanagement were false, were aware that Keating and Braico sought to remove

him for retaliatory purposes, nor harbored retaliatory intent themselves. Siddiqui

alleges that Braico had significant control over his sector and that the CWA board

would defer to his decisions related to sector issues. [39] ¶¶ 39, 41–42, 44. But these

allegations do not suggest that Braico swayed other members, affected their decision-

making, or conspired with them to retaliate against Siddiqui through removing him

from office.

Without any allegation to support that the other board members held

retaliatory intent, it is unreasonable to infer that these members did not Keating’s

petition at face value and did not remove Siddiqui to correct financial

mismanagement. Based on Siddiqui’s allegations, it is not reasonable to infer that

the but-for cause of his removal was his protected activity.

Siddiqui argues that even if his Title I claim against the CWA fails, he still can

bring the claim against Braico and NABET. [52-1] at 10–11. In doing so, he admits

that “the CWA was directly responsible for removing Siddiqui from office.” Id. at 10.

And while Siddiqui’s complaint alleges that all defendants removed him from office,

Siddiqui relies on documents that show it was only the CWA board. [48-1] at 4; [52-

1] at 15; [51] at 15. Siddiqui speculates that Braico could have been acting outside of

his authority or acting in the interests of NABET, rather than in his role as a CWA

board member. [52-1] at 10. Siddiqui does not make allegations that support this

inference. Siddiqui has not adequately alleged that NABET or Braico, beyond being

a member of the CWA board, were involved in the decision to remove him from office.

Siddiqui’s Title I claims based on his removal from office as part of the second

trusteeship are dismissed.

Repayment of Attorney’s Fees and Suspension of Membership

Siddiqui’s second theory of recovery is that “but for” his protected activity to

seek legal dissolution of the unlawful first trusteeship, the defendants would not have

declared him to owe over $90,000 in legal fees to the local. [39] ¶¶ 60–64, 71. The

parties focus their briefing on whether defendants had the authority to direct

Siddiqui pay back the attorney’s fees. See [46] at 11; [52-1] at 12. But the central

question for the retaliation claim is whether that decision was in response to

Siddiqui’s protected activity. Marshall, 387 Fed. App’x at 627–28.

NABET argues that the original payment of attorney’s fees was improper and

the Council’s decision that Siddiqui must repay the fees was simply a reversal of that

error. [46] at 11. Siddiqui says this non-retaliatory reason was false, but his

allegations fail to support this argument. See [52-1] at 11–13. He does not allege, nor

does the Council’s notice identify, who participated in the decision of the Council, let

alone that they had retaliatory intent, or knew of Keating and Braico’s animus. See

[52-4]. He has failed to state a claim on this theory against NABET and Braico.

As for the CWA, its involvement was limited to appellate review. See [39-2].

The Council’s resolution does not indicate any unlawful intent in imposing the

restitution. See [52-4]. And while the CWA president and board may have known of

the local’s political disputes and the invalidated first trusteeship, that does not mean

that they knew of NABET’s alleged unlawful intent to retaliate against Siddiqui by

demanding repayment of the fees. See Rodonich v. House Wreckers Union Loc. 95 of

Laborers’ Int’l Union, 817 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir. 1987) (“[The] review board was also

faced with evidence of a bitter factual dispute within [the local]. Certainly, [the board]

was not required to accept either party’s version of the events as true.”).

Siddiqui adds that “but for” his protected activity to seek legal dissolution of

the unlawful first trusteeship, the defendants would not have revoked his good

standing in the union. [39] ¶¶ 53–59; [39-2]. NABET argues that it did not suspend

Siddiqui’s membership because of his lawsuit to dissolve the first trusteeship but

because he failed to comply with legitimate orders of the council, the CWA president,

and executive board to repay the legal fees. [46] at 9. It characterizes the revocation

as a disciplinary action. [46] at 10.

Siddiqui counters that NABET’s bylaws set out a procedure for imposing

“discipline” and require the filing of charges, a fair trial before a body of three

members of the executive board, the right to call witnesses, and mandatory pre-trial

mediation. See [52-1] at 12 (citing [46-1] at 30–34). Nothing indicates that these

procedures were followed. Siddiqui argues that this shows NABET’s reason was

pretextual. [52-1] at 12. He also alleges that Braico conspired to harm his standing

in the union in other ways, showing animus. [39] ¶¶ 30–37.

NABET’s suspension of Siddiqui’s membership was wrapped up with the

decision that he owed the Local over $90,000. See [39-2]. The absence of a reasonable

inference that the Council harbored retaliatory animus on the restitution issue

carries over to the membership suspension. Moreover, the suspension letter does not

attribute the decision to anyone specifically. See [39-2] at 2. Without more, retaliatory

intent cannot be inferred from this collective decision made by multiple people.

Siddiqui has had two opportunities to plead a Title I claim and does not propose

further amendment. The Title I claim is dismissed with prejudice.

B. Tortious Interference

Siddiqui brings a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic

gain against Keating and Braico in their individual capacities. [39] ¶¶ 73–89. The

basis for jurisdiction over these claims is supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(a). [39] ¶ 11. Section 1367(c) provides that “courts may decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court

has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c)(3). When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, especially at early

stages, federal courts generally relinquish jurisdiction over any remaining

supplemental state law claims. Dietchweiler v. Lucas, 827 F.3d 622, 631 (7th Cir.

2016); see Phillips v. Baxter, 768 Fed. App’x 555, 560 (7th Cir. 2019) (“As to the state-

law claims, after dismissing [plaintiff’s] federal claims at such an early stage of

litigation, the district court should have followed the presumption of relinquishing

jurisdiction over them.”). Siddiqui’s tortious interference claim is dismissed without

prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

IV. Conclusion

Defendants’ motions to dismiss, [45], [47], are granted. Plaintiffs Title I claim

is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's state-law claim is dismissed without prejudice.

The declaratory judgment claim is dismissed without prejudice.? Enter judgment and

terminate civil case.

ENTER:

Manish 8. Shah

United States District Judge

Date: July 8, 2025

2 Although not entirely duplicative of Siddiqui’s other claims, the declaratory judgment claim

is about whether Siddiqui owes a debt, which in turn is intertwined with Siddiqui’s dispute

with Keating and Braico over their campaign against him. The state-law tortious interference

claim may still be litigated and a declaration about the over $90,000 debt would not resolve

the parties’ feud. I decline to hear the declaratory judgment claim. See Wilton v. Seven Falls

Co., 515 U.S. 277, 282 (1995) (district courts possess discretion in determining whether and

when to entertain an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, even when the suit

otherwise satisfies subject matter jurisdictional prerequisites).

14