holding that First Amendment interests of nonunion employees to work in nonunion environment were invaded by pro-union conspiracy
How later courts described this case
- holding that First Amendment interests of nonunion employees to work in nonunion environment were invaded by pro-union conspiracy
- class of non-union employees and employer subjected to union violence held to be protected class
- “Members of the plaintiff class must share some common characteristic beyond simply being victims of the defendant’s conspiratorial conduct.”
- former Fifth Circuit en banc
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
R. LANIER ANDERSON, III, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I join Parts I and III of the dissent authored by Judges Rubin and Williams. Having thus concluded that the district court erred in granting the injunction (Part I) and that there is not sufficient evidence to support the judgment when tested under the proper standard of proof (Part III), I find it unnecessary to reach the very difficult issues discussed by Judges Rubin and Williams in Part II. While I probably agree that the evidence in this case did not establish the necessary “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus,” I have reservations concerning the broader implications of Part II of the dissent of Judges Rubin and Williams.