Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mary Corner, Petitioner v. Martin J. Walsh, Secretary of Labor

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinions and Orders

Order of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit Imposing Fine on

Appellant (July 11, 2022)..............................

la

Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit (June 24, 2022)....

3a

Order of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit (May 25, 2022)..............

7a

Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United

States District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois Eastern Division

(February 18, 2022).......................................

9a

U.S. Department of Labor

Statement of Reasons

U.S. Department of Labor Statement of Reasons

(January 26, 2021)........................................... 21a

U.S. Deparment of Labor Statement of Reasons

(March 23, 2021).............................................. 28a

U.S. Department of Labor Statement of Reasons

(April 27, 2021)................................................ 34a

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

U.S. Department of Labor

Documents

Amended Complaint

(August 10, 2021)

43a

Ex. A to Complaint Letter from Mary Corner to

Election Committee Chairperson

(March 17, 2020)...........................................

46a

Letter from Mary Corner to U.S. DOL

Investigator (September 28, 2020)

48a

LM2 Statement B-Receipts

and Disbursement.......

53a

Respond from Mary Corner to the Circuit to

Show Cause Order (July 7, 2022)...........

54a

U.S. Department of Labor Report of

Investigation (October 29, 2020)

59a

App.la

ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

IMPOSING FINE ON APPELLANT

(JULY 11, 2022)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

MARY CORNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARTIN J. WALSH, Secretary of Labor

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-1428

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 21 CV 2867 Manish S. Shah, Judge.

Before: Frank H. EASTERBROOK, liana DIAMOND

ROVNER, Diane P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

Corner’s response to our order to show cause

does not persuade us that the appeal was other than

frivolous, as our order of June 24, 2022, concluded.

On the authority of Fed. R. App. P. 38, Corner is

fined $2,000 for persisting in frivolous litigation in

the teeth of judicial warnings that she must desist.

This fine, which is undoubtedly less than the expenses

App.2a

the Department of Labor incurred to defend against

the suit, is payable within 14 days. If it is not paid,

the court will take appropriate steps to curtail Corner’s

campaign of frivolous suits. See Support Systems

International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).

App.3a

OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

(JUNE 24, 2022)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

MARY CORNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARTIN J. WALSH, Secretary of Labor

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-1428

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Manish S. Shah, Judge.

Submitted June 17, 2022*

Decided June 24, 2022

Before: Frank H. EASTERBROOK, liana DIAMOND

ROVNER, Diane P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

Mary Corner believes that the officers of her local

union, a chapter of the American Postal Workers

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded

that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir.

R. 34(f).

App.4a

Union, should not hold their positions. Year after

year, she demands that the Secretary of Labor file suit

to oust these officers. Year after year, the Secretary

declines. Year after year, Corner files suit asking the

judiciary to compel the Secretary to sue. Year after

year, she loses.

Corner’s complaint about the 2020 election

contends that all of the local chapter’s officers are

ineligible because none is a member of the union in

good standing, a requisite for election. 29 U.S.C.

§ 481(e). They aren’t members in good standing, Corner

contends, because they have not paid their dues. She

attached to her administrative complaint one document

(an LM-2 form) that in her view does not reflect pay­

ment. The Secretary concluded, however, that all

four have paid—three by deductions from their salaries

as officers of the local chapter and the fourth by dues

checkoff from his salary with the Postal Service until

his retirement, after which the local chapter deducted

dues from his salary as an officer. In reaching these

conclusions the Secretary relied on the Local’s dues

records, the Postal Service’s payroll statements and

dues-checkoff statements, and the national union’s

per-capita-tax statements.

A federal court may compel the Secretary to file

suit against a union only if the Secretary’s statement

of reasons is arbitrary and capricious; the judiciary

cannot take evidence and look behind the statement.

See Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 572-73 (1975).

The district court granted judgment to the Secretary,

observing that his explanation for not suing appears

to be well researched and reasoned. 2022 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 29545 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 2022). (Actually the

Secretary issued more than one statement of reasons,

App.5a

but we use the singular for ease of exposition.) Corner

then appealed.

Corner’s appellate brief does not contend that

the Secretary’s statement is defective. Instead she

accuses the Department of Labor’s lawyers of having

committed a felony, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, by mentioning

it at all. She wants the judiciary to ignore the state­

ment and look only to the form that she submitted.

She now contends that, because she has ignored the

Secretary’s statement, the Department of Labor’s law­

yers must do so too and committed a crime by bringing

it to the district judge’s attention.

As we mentioned at the outset, Corner is a

frequent litigant about union-election matters. She

has been told repeatedly, by district judges and this

court, that the Bachowski standard limits judicial

review. She cannot opt out of Bachowski by ignoring

the Secretary’s statement of reasons. In litigation under

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)

(A), courts review the administrative record. Bachowski

holds that the administrative record in a contest to a

union election is the Secretary’s statement of reasons.

An agency does not violate the APA, let alone a

criminal statute, by lodging the administrative record

in the district court. Because the statement is the

administrative record, it does not matter whether the

Department’s decision to provide the district court

with a copy of the Secretary’s statement converted

its motion to one for summary judgment. Whether

this case is evaluated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),

Rule 12(c), or Rule 56, the record is the same: the

Secretary’s statement. There will be no discovery, no

testimony, and no judicial findings of fact or credibility

assessments.

App.6a

Corner ignores the district judge’s analysis just

as she ignores the Secretary’s statement of reasons.

We have twice told her that baseless attacks on

elections must cease. See Porch-Clark and Corner v.

Engelhart, No. 13-2022 (7th Cir. Dec. 10, 2013) (nonprecedential disposition); Corner v. Acosta, No. 183655 (7th Cir. June 3, 2019) (nonprecedential dispo­

sition). Our warnings—which mirror warnings she

has received from district judges—do not appear to

have affected her behavior; the current appeal is even

weaker than its predecessors. We therefore order

Corner to show cause within 14 days why she should

not be subject to financial or other penalties for this

frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed

and an order to show cause is issued.

App.7a

ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

(MAY 25, 2022)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

MARY CORNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARTIN J. WALSH, Secretary of Labor

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-1428

District Court No. 1:21 CV 2867

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Manish S. Shah, District Judge.

The following are before the court:

1.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S FIRST

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, filed

on May 23, 2022, by counsel for the appellee.

2.

OPPOSITION TO DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTEN­

SION OF TIME, filed on May 24, 2022, by

counsel for the appellant.

App.8a

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

Briefing will proceed as follows:

1.

The brief of the appellee is due by June 10,

2022.

2.

The reply brief of the appellant, if any, is

due by July 1, 2022.

App.9a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

(FEBRUARY 18, 2022)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARY CORNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTY WALSH, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Defendant.

No. 21 CV 2867

Before: Manish S. SHAH, Judge.

Mary Corner is a member of a local chapter of

the American Postal Workers Union. She says that

four of the successful candidates in the Local’s 2020

election were ineligible to run for office, and that the

Secretary of Labor acted arbitrarily and capriciously,

in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), when he decided

not to initiate an enforcement action. She asks that I

order the Secretary to set aside the 2020 election

results and re-do the election. But the Secretary’s

decision not to initiate an enforcement action was

App.lOa

not arbitrary or capricious, so Corner’s complaint is

dismissed.

I.

Background

Title IV of the Labor-Management Relations and

Disclosure Act is designed to ensure “free and demo­

cratic union elections.” Chao v. Local 743, International

Brotherhood of Teamsters, 467 F.3d 1014, 1016 (7th

Cir. 2006) (quoting Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle

Blowers Association, 389 U.S. 463, 475 (1968)). It

sets out the substantive requirements for elections

and the procedures to challenge elections. See 29

U.S.C. §§ 402, 481-483. Any union member who thinks

Title IV has been violated and who has exhausted

the remedies available under the union’s constitution

and bylaws can file a complaint with the Secretary of

Labor. 29 U.S.C. § 482(a). The Secretary must invest­

igate the complaint. § 482(b). If the Secretary finds

probable cause to believe that a Title IV violation

affected the outcome of the election and it hasn’t been

remedied, he must bring a civil action against the

union to set aside the election results and conduct a

new election. Id.; Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560,

562—63 (1975), overruled in unrelated part by Local

No. 82, Furniture and Piano Moving v. Crowley, 467

U.S. 526, n.22 (1984).

When the Secretary decides not to sue, the

Secretary must issue a statement of reasons outlining

“the grounds of decision and the essential facts upon

which the Secretary’s inferences are based.” Dunlop,

421 U.S. at 574. The complainant can then challenge

the Secretary’s decision in the district court, but the

court’s review is “exceedingly narrow.” Id. at 590

(Burger, C.J., concurring). Unless the statement of

App.lla

reasons (the only part of the administrative record

the court relies on, see id. at 572- 73)) makes clear

that the decision not to sue is arbitrary and capricious,

the court will not substitute its judgment for that of

the Secretary. See id. at 571.

Mary Corner is a member of Northwest Illinois

Area Local #7140, a chapter of the American Postal

Workers Union. See [17-1] at 8.1 In September 2020,

the Local held an election, about which Corner filed

three complaints with the Department of Labor. Id.

at 2, 8, 14. Two of those complaints, both filed after

the election took place (one in September and the other

in December), are at issue here. Corner complained

that certain candidates were ineligible for office. See

id. at 8, 18. The Department said it had found no vio­

lation of the Act and that the four candidates were

members in “good standing” eligible to run for election.

Id. at 8. Corner filed suit in this court, alleging that

the Secretary’s decision not to initiate an enforce­

ment action was arbitrary and capricious, and asking

that I direct the Secretary to set aside the results of

the 2020 election and order a new one. [11-1] at 1—3.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure

to state a claim or, in the alternative, a motion for

summary judgment. [21]. Usually, a court can only

consider the plaintiffs complaint when ruling on a

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Burke v. 401 N. Wabash

Venture LLC, 714 F.3d 501, 505 (7th Cir. 2013). If

the court chooses to consider evidence outside the

pleadings, it generally must convert the motion to

1 Bracketed numbers refer to entries on the district court

docket. Page numbers are taken from the CM/ECF header placed

at the top of filings.

App.l2a

dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(d); see Tierney v. Vahle, 304 F.3d 734, 738

(7th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(2) (answer

to complaint is a type of pleading). But there are

exceptions to this rule. One exception says that a copy

of a “written instrument” that’s attached to the

pleadings as an exhibit becomes part of the pleading,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), so long as the exhibit is referred

to in the complaint and central to the plaintiffs claim.

See Burke, 714 F.3d at 505 (citing McCready v. eBay,

Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 891 (7th Cir. 2006)); Wright v.

Associated Ins. Cos. Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1248 (7th Cir.

1994). The document must be “concededly authentic”

and must not require “discovery to authenticate or

disambiguate.” Tierney, 304 F.3d at 738-39.

The second exception allows the court to consider

an exhibit attached to a defendant’s pleading but not

attached to the plaintiffs complaint. Brownmark

Films LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687, 690

(7th Cir. 2012). This is the so-called incorporationby-reference doctrine, intended to prevent a plaintiff

from “evad[ing] dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) simply

by failing to attach to [her] complaint a document

that prove [s] [her] claim has no merit.” Id. (quoting

Tierney, 304 F.3d at 738). As before, the exhibit must

be referred to in the plaintiffs complaint, central to her

claim, “concededly authentic,” and possible to interpret

without further discovery. Burke, 714 F.3d at 505;

Wright, 29 F.3d at 1248; Tierney, 304 F.3d at 738-39.

That’s the case here. Corner didn’t attach the

Secretary’s statements of reasons to her complaint,

but the Secretary attached them to his answer to the

complaint. [17-1]. Corner often refers to the statements

in her complaint, [11-1] at 1-2, and they are central

App.l3a

to her claim: her argument is that they show the

Secretary acted arbitrarily and capriciously. [26] at

5—6. Corner hasn’t challenged the authenticity of the

statements, and I don’t need additional information

(nor would I be permitted to review such information,

Dunlop, 421 U.S. at 572) to understand them. Given

all this, I can consider the Secretary’s statements

without converting his motion to dismiss to a motion

for summary judgment.2

According to the Department of Labor’s statement

of reasons, written in response to Corner’s September

complaint, Corner alleged that four incumbent cand­

idates were ineligible to run because they were not

members in good standing.3 [17-1] at 8. First, they

hadn’t paid dues or per capita taxes every two weeks

(as opposed to every month). Id. at 9-10. Second, the

Local must not have deducted dues because no such

deductions were reported on the LM-2 form. Id. at 11.

Third, the records the Department relied on in deter­

mining that the candidates were current in their

dues may not have been authentic. Id. at 9. And fourth,

2 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must

allege facts that “raise a right to relief above the speculative

level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

Her complaint must contain “a short and plain statement”

showing that she is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2);

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). At this stage, I

draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, disre­

garding legal conclusions or “threadbare recitals” supported by

only “conclusory statements.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

3 With certain exceptions discussed below, Comer says that the

Department misunderstood her allegations, and in its statement

of reasons and motion to dismiss, discussed allegations she never

made. See [26].

App.l4a

the Local doesn’t qualify as an employer and therefore

wasn’t authorized to deduct dues. Id. at 10-11.

The Department responded to each allegation. It

explained that members are not required to pay dues

every two weeks but can instead pay them monthly if

they aren’t using the USPS’s automatic dues check­

off payroll deduction. Id. at 9-10. Three of the

candidates were not on the dues payroll-deduction

list, but instead had their dues deducted by the Local

(for whom they worked as union officials). Id. at 10.

The fourth candidate had dues deducted both from

his USPS paycheck and his Local paycheck. Id. The

Department also explained that although the LM-2

form may have suggested that the Local didn’t deduct

dues from the candidates’ paychecks, the Department’s

review of other records showed the candidates were

current on their dues. Id. at 11.

In response to Corner’s calling into question

the authenticity of the documents the Department

reviewed, the Department simply said that the inves­

tigation didn’t uncover “evidence of falsification or

forgery.” Id. at 9. Finally, the Department explained

that “the employer status of the [Local] is not a

consideration in determining whether the incumbents

were members in good standing.” Id. at 10.

The Department responded to Corner’s December

2020 complaint with another statement of reasons.

Id. at 14-18. Only one of those allegations from the

December 2020 complaint is at issue here (the eligibility

of the four incumbents), and because the Department

had already addressed that allegation, it simply

referred to its previous statement of reasons finding

the candidates were eligible. Id. at 18.

App.l5a

This is Corner’s seventh election-related complaint

filed in or removed to this district.4 Add the four

appeals she’s taken from some of those decisions, and

this is her eleventh election-related challenge in fed­

eral court.5 The court of appeals has twice warned

Corner that her continued filing of essentially identical

election-related complaints could subject her to

sanctions. See Porch-Clark & Corner v. Engelhart,

547 Fed. App’x 782, 783 (7th Cir. 2013) (“It is time

for the plaintiffs to accept the Secretary’s decision,

and we warn them that more litigation over the 2011

election risks sanctions.”); Corner v. Acosta, 771 Fed.

App’x 652, 654 (7th Cir. 2019) (“We end with a warning.

. . . Any future filings that reprise this argument

4 Her others are Corner v. Dep’t of Labor, No. 06 C 1397, 2006

WL 1877049 (N.D. HI. July 5, 2006) (alleging inaccurate election

results, ballot tampering, inaccurate voter list, inadequate number

of election observers, and a “conspiracy to rig the election

results”); Alexander-Scott & Corner v. Fox, No. 08 C 7043, 2009

WL 3380670 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009) (alleging destruction of

secret ballot envelopes, improper restrictions placed on election

observers, ballots without candidates’ names); Comer v. Engelhart,

No. 11 C 5183, 2011 WL 4688723 (N.D. El. Oct. 4, 2011) (improp­

erly bringing suit against the winner of the chapter’s presidential

election—not the Secretary of Labor—and alleging that she was

ineligible to run); Comer v. Solis, No. 11 C 8652, 2012 WL 1969423

(N.D. Ill. June 1, 2012) (again challenging the president’s eligi­

bility, though this time by suing the Secretary of Labor); PorchClark & Corner v. Engelhart, 930 F. Supp. 2d 928 (N.D. Ill.

2013) (same); Comer v. Acosta, No. 17 C 8134, 2018 WL 6062464

(N.D. HI. Nov. 19, 2018) (challenging candidate eligibility and

alleging improper use of union newspaper to favor incumbent

candidates).

5 See Corner v. Dep’t of Labor, 219 Fed. App’x 492,2007 WL 528814

(7th Cir. 2007); Corner v. Solis, 380 Fed. App’x 532 (7th Cir.

2010); Porch-Clark & Corner v. Engelhart, 547 Fed. App’x 782

(7th Cir. 2013); Comer v. Acosta, 771 Fed. App’x 652 (7th Cir. 2019).

App.l6a

without distinguishing the circumstances underlying

her previous dismissals will subject Corner to possible

sanctions.”).

II. Analysis

There seems to be some confusion between the

parties about how to characterize Corner’s complaints.

In his motion to dismiss, the Secretary says there are

three allegations at issue. First, that the four incumbent

candidates were ineligible because they were not

“members in good standing.” [22] at 7. Second, that

the candidates were required to pay their dues and

per capita taxes on a biweekly schedule, which they

didn’t do. Id. And third, that the Local was required

to report dues deductions for the four candidates on

its LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report but

failed to do so. Id.

In response to Corner’s LM-2 argument, the

Secretary says that “[m]atters concerning inaccurate,

incomplete, or inadequate LM-2 report filings with

the Department are covered by the requirements of

[Title II of the Act], not election provisions of Title IV

[which covers candidate eligibility].” [22] at n.3. In

other words, Corner can’t challenge the candidates’

eligibility by bringing a Title II complaint. But Corner

insists she isn’t bringing such a complaint because

she isn’t alleging that the LM-2 is “inaccurate,

incomplete, or inadequate.” [26] at 10. What she seems

to be alleging—although she never explicitly connects

the dots—is that the LM-2 is accurate, and because it

shows no sign of dues deductions from the candidates,

the four candidates must be ineligible to run.

App.l7a

Corner is assuming that the contents of the LM2 can establish candidates’ eligibility.6 But eligibility

to run hinges on whether a member is in good standing.

29 U.S.C. § 481(e). A member in good standing is

anyone who has fulfilled the union’s member require­

ments and has neither voluntarily withdrawn nor been

expelled or suspended. 29 U.S.C. § 402(o). In inter­

preting a union’s member requirements, the Secretary

accepts the relevant union official or governing body’s

interpretation of those requirements, unless their

interpretation is “clearly unreasonable.” 29 C.F.R.

§ 452.3.

Again, Corner responds that she isn’t making a

member-in-good-standing complaint, either. [26] at

13 (“The Secretary chose to investigate the incumbent’s

[sic] under the rule of good standing [] when he did not

have a complaint regarding members in good stand­

ing.”); id. at 14. Her point is a distinction without a

difference. By arguing that the candidates were inel­

igible, id. at 5; [11-1] at 5, Corner is necessarily arguing

that they were not members in good standing—that

is the sole standard for determining candidate eligi­

bility. See 29 U.S.C. § 481(e).

The case boils down to whether the Secretary

arbitrarily and capriciously decided that the candidates

were eligible. In reaching a decision, the Secretary

doesn’t have to recite detailed findings of fact but

must include the material facts and the grounds of

6 This assumption is clear from Comer’s response to the Secre­

tary’s motion to dismiss: “Next, the Secretary stated my com­

plaint regarding the LM-2 was irrelevant for determining the

non-postal workers [sic] eligibility. Why not? The LM-2 is an

official record of money being spent by the [Local] Treasurer.”

[26] at 14.

App.l8a

the decision. Dunlop, 421 U.S. at 573-74. Here, the

Secretary acknowledged Corner’s allegation that,

because the candidates’ dues deductions weren’t

reflected on the LM-2 form, their dues must not have

been deducted. [17-1] at 11. But the Secretary said

the Department’s own review found otherwise. Id. at

9. The Department looked at the Local’s dues records,

the USPS payroll-and dues-checkoff statements, and

the national union’s per-capita-tax statements. Id. It

found that the Local deducted full dues from the

union paychecks of three of the candidates from

March 2019 to March 2020 (the relevant period for

being a member in good standing on election day). Id.

For the fourth candidate, the USPS deducted dues

from his paycheck from January to May 2019; following

his retirement, the Local deducted dues from his

union paycheck from June 2019 to March 2020. Id.

Corner might doubt these conclusions, but the

Secretary’s factual findings are outside my scope of

review. Dunlop, 421 U.S. at 573; see also AlexanderScott & Corner, 2009 WL 3380670, at *5. It’s clear

there was a “rational and defensible basis” for the

Secretary’s decision not to sue, so I affirm the Secre­

tary’s decision and conclude that Corner’s suit does

not state a plausible claim for relief. Dunlop, 421

U.S. at 573.

As I noted above, this is Corner’s eleventh feder­

al court challenge (counting appeals) to the results of

a union election. Many of those suits or appeals chal­

lenged the candidates’ eligibility to run. See Corner v.

Engelhart, 2011 WL 4688723; Corner v. Solis, 2012

WL 1969423; Porch-Clark & Corner v. Engelhart,

930 F. Supp. 2d 928; Porch-Clark v. Engelhart, 547

Fed. App’x 782; Corner v. Acosta, 2018 WL 6062464;

App.l9a

Corner v. Acosta, 771 Fed. App’x 652. This is the first

time she’s relied on an LM-2 form to challenge the

candidates’ eligibility and the first time she’s chal­

lenged the 2020 election. But the result is the same:

more unwarranted burden on the courts. “Every paper

filed ... no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires

some portion of the [court’s] limited resources. A part

of the [c]ourt’s responsibility is to see that these

resources are allocated in a way that promotes the

interests of justice.” Montgomery u. Davis, 362 F.3d

956, 957 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re McDonald,

489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). To fulfill that responsibil­

ity, district courts can enjoin frequent litigants from

filing frivolous lawsuits. Srivastava v. Daniels, 409

Fed. App’x 953, 955 (7th Cir. 2011); see In re Chapman,

328 F.3d 903, 905-06 (7th Cir. 2003). Given Corner’s

history of filing frivolous and repetitious lawsuits—

despite two warnings from the court of appeals—

Corner might think that she can continue to file chal­

lenges to the 2020 election. Not so. New twists on an

old theme are likely to be just as burdensome and

could result in sanctions.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiffs motion for a final decision, [28], is

granted. The Secretary’s motion to dismiss, [21], is

granted. Enter judgment and terminate civil case.

App.20a

Enter:

/s/ Manish S. Shah

Judge

Date: February 18, 2022

App.21a

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

STATEMENT OF REASONS

(JANUARY 26, 2021)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Labor-Management Standards

Division of Enforcement

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 693-0143 Fax: (202) 693-1343

Ms. Mary Corner

557 47th Avenue

Bellwood, IL 60104

Dear Ms. Corner:

This Statement of Reasons is in response to the

complaint you filed with the U.S. Department of

Labor on September 29, 2020, alleging that violations

of Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and

Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 481-483,

occurred in connection with the mail ballot election of

union officers conducted by the American Postal Work­

ers Union, Northwest Illinois Area Local (NWIAL),

Local 7140, on September 1, 2020.

The Department of Labor conducted an investi­

gation of your allegations. As a result of the investi­

gation, the Department has concluded, with respect

to the specific allegations, that there was no violation

of the LMRDA that may have affected the outcome of

the election. Following is an explanation of this con­

clusion.

You alleged that the NWIAL should not have

permitted President Jackie Engelhart, Secretary Linda

App.22a

Retel, Chief Trustee Ray Wience, and Maintenance

Director Joseph Golden, all incumbent officers, to

run for reelection because they were are not members

in good standing. Section 401(e) of the LMRDA pro­

vides, “every member in good standing shall be

eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (subject to

section 504 and to reasonable qualifications uniformly

imposed).” 29 U.S.C. § 481(e).

The investigation found that Jackie Engelhart,

Linda Retel, Raymond Wience and Joseph Golden (or

“incumbents”) were members in good standing at the

time of nominations and the 2020 election and, thus,

were eligible for candidacy. Specifically, Article 10(a)

of the APWU Constitution and Article 11, Section 3

of the NWIAL Constitution prescribe the eligibility

requirements for candidacy. Article 10(a) of the APWU

Constitution provides that to be eligible for nomination,

the candidate must be a “member in good standing.”

Article 11, Section 3 of the NWIAL Constitution pro­

vides, “no member of this Local shall be eligible for

nomination or election to office unless he has been a

“member in good standing” of the NWIAL for the one

year preceding nominations.”

The NWIAL and APWU constitutions do not

expressly define “member in good standing.” However,

according to the union officials interviewed by the

Department during the investigation, the union has

consistently interpreted good standing to mean a

member who has paid dues for the year immediately

preceding nominations and is current in the payment

of such dues at the time of nominations. The

Department’s regulations provide that “[t]he inter­

pretation consistently placed on a union’s constitution

by the responsible union official or governing body

App.23a

will be accepted unless the interpretation is clearly

unreasonable.” 29 C.F.R. § 452.3.

In this challenged election, the nominations meet­

ing was held on March 8, 2020. The one-year qualifying

period for candidacy was March 7, 2019 to March 7,

2020. To determine whether Engelhart, Retel, Wience

and Golden were current in their dues payments for

that period, the Department reviewed various records,

including the NWIAL dues records, USPS payroll and

dues checkoff statements, and the APWU per capita

tax (PCT) statements covering the period of March of

2019 to March of 2020.

This review disclosed that the NWIAL deducted

full dues from the NWIAL paychecks of Engelhart,

Retel and Wience for the months of March of 2019 to

March of 2020. The Department’s review of the

automatic USPS dues check off reports for Golden

found that the USPS deducted full dues from his

USPS paycheck bi-weekly during the months of Jan­

uary of 2019 to May of 2019. Following Golden’s

retirement from the USPS, the NWIAL deducted full

dues from his NWIAL paycheck for the months of

June 2019 to March 2020. Based on the Department’s

in-depth review of the relevant records the incumbents

were current in their dues for the relevant period.

You questioned the authenticity of the records

the Department reviewed. However, the investigation

did not uncover any evidence of falsification or forgery

of these records, documents, or cancelled check pay­

ments on behalf of Engelhart, Retel, Wience or Golden.

Inasmuch as Engelhart, Retel, Wience and Golden

were current in their dues during the candidacy

qualifying period, they were in good standing at the

App.24a

time of the 2020 election and, therefore, eligible for

candidacy.

In further support of your allegation challenging

the candidacy eligibility of the incumbents, you asserted

that since they do not pay dues and the PCT every

two weeks as you do, pursuant to the USPS dues

check off, they were not in good standing at the time

of the 2020 election. However, neither the NWIAL

Constitution nor the APWU Constitution requires

continuity of good standing based on the payment of

dues or the PCT every two weeks. See 29 C.F.R.

§ 452.37(b). In fact, Article 14, Section 2 of the NWIAL

Constitution expressly permits members who do not

have their dues automatically withheld by a USPS

check-off arrangement to pay dues on a monthly

basis. This constitutional provision provides in relevant

part, “[t]he dues of this Local shall be Twenty-three

Dollars and Sixty-nine Cents ($23.69) per pay period

[or bi-weekly], which shall include National and State

per capita tax. Dues shall be payable through the

automatic [USPS] dues check-off payroll deduction.

In the absence of the dues check off, dues shall be

payable . . . each month.” (Emphasis added).

The investigation found that Engelhart, Retel,

and Wience were not on an automatic USPS dues

check-off arrangement during the candidacy qualifying

period. Their full monthly dues were deducted from

their NWIAL paychecks by the NWIAL. Therefore,

the NWIAL Constitution did not require the NWIAL

to deduct their dues per pay period or bi-weekly. In

addition, during the relevant period the USPS deducted

full dues from Golden’s USPS pay checks bi-weekly

and the NWIAL deducted full dues from his NWIAL

pay checks on a monthly or similar basis. The NWIAL’s

App.25a

deduction of full dues on behalf of the incumbents

during the relevant period was consistent with Article

14, Section 2 of the NWIAL Constitution and did not

affect the incumbents’ good standing.

With respect to the PCT payments, a member is

not required to be current in the payment of the PCT

to establish good standing. Pursuant to the union

leadership’s consistent and reasonable interpretation,

a member is consider to be in good standing so long

as the member has paid dues for the year immediately

preceding nominations and is current in the payment

of such dues at the time of nominations. Notwith­

standing, the NWIAL paid the full PCT for these

officers to the APWU quarterly during the appropri­

ate period. You asserted that the NWIAL Constitu­

tion does not permit quarterly payment of the PCT

and, therefore, the incumbents lost their good standing.

However, the NWIAL Constitution does not contain

any such proscription.

The APWU Constitution addresses the PCT.

Article 16, Section 2(a) of the APWU Constitution

provides, “[t]he revenues of this Union shall be

derived from a per capita tax ..., bi-weekly.” Reference

to “per capita tax, biweekly” concerns the PCT deducted

from dues withheld “bi-weekly” from members’ USPS

paychecks under a USPS dues check-off arrangement.

This constitutional provision does not expressly

proscribe the quarterly deduction of the PCT from

dues withheld by the NWIAL monthly from NWIAL

paychecks. Further, the senior manager of the APWU

Per Capita Department stated during the investigation

that Engelhart, Retel, Wience and Golden were current

in the PCT payments and in good standing at the

time of the 2020 election.

App.26a

You also alleged that Engelhart, Retel, Wience

and Golden were not in good standing because,

according to you, the NWIAL does not qualify as an

employer and, thus, is not authorized to deduct dues.

However, the employer status of the NWIAL is not a

consideration in determining whether the incumbents

were members in good standing and eligible for

candidacy, for purposes of the union officer election

provisions of Title IV of the LMRDA. See 29 U.S.C.

§§ 481-483; see also 29 U.S.C. § 402(o). Such a deter­

mination turns on whether they had satisfied the

standards for candidacy and office holding prescribed

in the NWIAL and APWU constitutions at the time

of the 2020 election. 29 U.S.C. § 481(e); 29 C.F.R.

§ 452.35. The investigation found that they had met

such requirements and standards and, thus, were

eligible for candidacy in that election.

Finally, you alleged that the NWIAL did not

deduct dues for the incumbents because no such

deductions were reported on Statement B, Lines 47

and 64 of the Form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual

Report (LM-2 report) the NWIAL filed with the

Department on March 4, 2020. Regardless of your

allegation concerning the LM-2 report, the Depart­

ment’s in-depth review of the relevant records found

that these incumbent officers were current in their

dues payments during the relevant period and were

eligible to run as candidates in the 2020 election.

On these facts, Engelhart, Retel, Wience and

Golden were members in good standing and, thus,

eligible for candidacy at the time of the nominations

and the 2020 election. Therefore, the LMRDA was

not violated when the NWIAL permitted them to run

for office.

App.27a

For the reasons set forth above, it is concluded

that there was no violation of the LMRDA that may

have affected the outcome of the election. Accordingly,

the office has closed the file on this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Tracv L. Shanker

Chief Division of Enforcement

cc: Mark Dimondstein, President

American Postal Workers Union

1300 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Jackie Engelhart, President

American Postal Workers Union-NWIAL

Local 7140

194 W Lake Street

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Beverly Dankowitz

Associate Solicitor for Civil Rights and LaborManagement

File: 3X0-6020097(01)

bee: CHIDO, DIS

OLMS/DOE/SHANKER/FPB N-5119/202-693-0293

Initials

Date

Last Name

1l5

1/22/2021

SHANKER

DOE Chief

Title

Case String: 310602009701

LM: 071479

DOE Number: 9432

App.28a

U.S. DEPARMENT OF LABOR

STATEMENT OF REASONS

(MARCH 23, 2021)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Labor-Management Standards

Division of Enforcement

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 693-0143 Fax: (202) 693-1343

Ms. Mary Corner

557 47th Avenue

Bellwood, IL 60104

Dear Ms. Corner:

This Statement of Reasons is in response to the

complaint you filed with the U.S. Department of Labor

on July 6, 2020, alleging that a violation of Title IV

of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 481-483, occurred in

connection with the mail ballot election of union

officers completed by the American Postal Workers

Union, Northwest Illinois Area Local (“NWIAL”), Local

7140, on September 1, 2020. The Department con­

ducted an investigation of the complaint. As a result

of the investigation, the Department has concluded

that, to the extent a violation of the LMRDA occurred, it

has been remedied by the NWIAL. 29 U.S.C. § 482(b).

You alleged that the NWIAL did not conduct an

election of officers within three years after its April

24, 2017 election. Section 401(b) of the LMRDA pro­

vides, “[e]very local labor organization shall elect its

officers not less often than once every three years by

vr-♦.

App.29a

secret ballot among the members in good standing” 29

U.S.C. § 481(b); see also 29 C.F.R. § 452.23. Section

401(e) of the LMRJDA requires a labor organization to

conduct its election of union officers in accordance

with the constitution and bylaws of such organization.

29 U.S.C. § 481(e); see also 29 C.F.R. § 452.2. Article

11, Section 2 of the NWIAL Constitution provides,

“the term of all elected officers shall be three (3)

years and all officers shall be installed into office the

first Sunday of May.” Section 14 of that article pro­

vides, “ballots shall be counted prior to April 30 in

the election year.”

The investigation found that the NWIAL’s regular

election of officers was scheduled for April 24, 2020.

In preparation of that election, the NWIAL president

selected an election committee (“LEC”) in January of

2020. The notice of nominations and elections was

published in the March 2020 issue of the NWIAL

newsletter, which was mailed to members in late

February of 2020. The notice listed the tentative

dates of March 16, 2020 and April 3, 2020, for the

ballot mailing, March 8, 2020, for the nominations

meeting, and April 24, 2020 for the ballot tally. On

March 5, 2020, the American Arbitration Association

(“AAA”) set a date of March 20, 2020, for the pre­

paration of the ballot packages. On March 8, 2020,

the NWIAL conducted its nominations meeting as

scheduled. On March 11, 2020, the AAA informed the

LEC of the potential for scheduling disruptions due

to the “evolving coronavirus situation.” The AAA

indicated, however, that it was moving forward with

the election as planned.

On March 13, 2020, the AAA informed the LEC

that the AAA recommended having a minimum number

App.30a

of observers at the ballot preparation to protect the

health of everyone. The AAA further indicated that if

its offices shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic,

the plans for the ballot preparation might have to be

changed. That same day the LEC provided a list of

observers to the AAA. On March 16, 2020, the LEC

informed you that the April 24, 2020 election had

been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a

result of the pandemic, the AAA suspended the use

of its offices and canceled the preparation of the

ballot packages scheduled for March 20, 2020. On

March 17, 2020, the AAA notified the LEC that it

had temporarily closed its Chicago office for a few

weeks and presented three options for moving forward

with the election scheduled for April 24, 2020 - have

the printing company mail the ballots without

observers, have AAA staff assemble and mail the

ballots from their homes without observers, or delay

the election until the U.S. Center for Disease Control

and Prevention announced that it would be safe to

congregate in groups of 10 or more people.

On or around March 18, 2020, the LEC prepared

a notice that was mailed to members informing them

that the preparation of the ballots had been delayed

due to the Corona virus outbreak and stay-at-home

orders issued by the city of Chicago and the state of

Illinois. The notice further stated that it would notify

members of any attempts to move forward with the

election process. On March 31, 2020, the LEC contacted

the AAA and inquired about alternatives methods for

conducting the election. After not hearing from AAA,

the LEC contacted the AAA on June 2, 2020, and

inquired about the status of the election.

App.31a

On June 4, 2020, the AAA informed the LEC

that the AAA office would remain closed until October

1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this

closure, the AAA and the LEC continued to work to

find a suitable venue for the ballot preparation. On

June 10, 2020, the AAA informed the LEC that it

had been unsuccessful in its attempt to rent a facility

for the ballot preparation. On June 22, 2020, the

AAA informed the LEC that the city of Chicago

planned to reopen and, therefore, the LEC could pro­

ceed with setting the dates for the ballot preparation

and mailing.

On June 24, 2020, the AAA informed the LEC

that the union hall of the Chicago Federation of

Musicians union would be available on July 24, 2020

and September 1, 2020. On June 26, 2020, the LEC

confirmed the dates of the election with the AAA.

By letter dated June 30, 2020, the LEC informed

candidates of the tentative date for the 2020 election.

On July 6, 2020, the LEC determined that the NWIAL

would complete its election on September 1, 2020,

and conducted the ballot mailing on July 24, 2020.

The election was completed on September 1, 2020, as

scheduled.

Clearly, the NWIAL’s delay in completing the

election by April 24, 2020, resulted from disruptions

caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Such disruptions

prevented the NWIAL from timely complying with

the requirement of the LMRDA that a local labor

organization elect its officers “not less often than

once every three years by secret ballot among the

members in good standing.” 29 U.S.C. § 481(b). How­

ever, Section 402(b) of the LMRDA authorizes the

Secretary of Labor to bring a civil action against a

App.32a

labor organization only when a violation of the union

officer election provisions of the LMRDA “has not

been remedied.” Section 402(b) of the LMRDA provides,

The Secretary shall investigate [a] complaint

and, if he finds probable cause to believe that

a violation of this subchapter has occurred

and has not been remedied, he shall, within

sixty days after the filing of such complaint,

bring a civil action against the labor organi­

zation as an entity in the district court of

the United States in which such labor

organization maintains its principal office

to set aside the invalid election, if any, and

to direct the conduct of an election . . . under

the supervision of the Secretary and in

accordance with the provisions of this

subchapter and such rules and regulations

as the Secretary may prescribe.

29 U.S.C. § 482(b) (emphasis added).

In this instance, the September 1, 2020 election

remedied the NWIAL’s delay in completing its election

by April 24, 2020. Thus, to the extent that a violation

of the LMRDA occurred, there was no violation of the

LMRDA that “has not been remedied.”

For the reasons set forth above, the Department

has concluded that there was no violation of the

LMRDA that has not been remedied by the NWIAL

during the September 1, 2020 election, and I have

closed the file regarding this matter.

App.33a

Sincerely,

Is/ Tracv L. Shanker

Chief, Division of Enforcement

cc: Mark Dimondstein, National President

American Postal Workers Union

1300 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Jacqueline Engelhart, President

APWU LU 7140

194 W. Lake Street

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Beverly Dankowitz, Associate Solicitor for Civil Rights

and Labor-Management

bcc:

CHIDO, DIS File: 310-6018344(01)

OLMS/DOE//FPB N-5119/ /

_________

Initials

0?cr

115

Date

03/19/2021

03/22/2021

Last Name

DEMPSEY

SHANKER

Title

DOE Inv.

DOE Chief

Case String: 310601834401

LM: 071479

DOE Number: 9413

App.34a

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

STATEMENT OF REASONS

(APRIL 27, 2021)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Labor-Management Standards

Division of Enforcement

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 693-0143 Fax: (202) 693-1343

Ms. Mary Corner

557 47th Avenue

Bellwood, IL 60104

Dear Ms. Corner:

This Statement of Reasons is in response to the

complaint you filed with the Department of Labor on

December 9, 2020, alleging that violations of Title IV

of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

Act (“Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 481-483, occurred in connection

with the mail ballot election of union officers completed

by the American Postal Workers Union (“APWU”),

Northwest Illinois Area Local (“NWIAL”), Local 7140,

on September 1, 2020.

The Department conducted an investigation of

your allegations. As a result of the investigation, the

Department has concluded, with respect to the specific

allegations, that there was no violation of the LMRDA

that may have affected the outcome of the election.

Following is an explanation of this conclusion.

You alleged that the post office box that the

union secured in March of 2020 for the return of the

voted ballots was changed to a new post office box in

App.35a

July of 2020. Section 401(c) of the Act provides a gen­

eral mandate that a union provide adequate safe­

guards to insure a fair election. 29 U.S.C. § 481(c); 29

C.F.R. § 452.110. The investigation disclosed that on

March 11, 2020, the American Arbitration Association

(“AAA”), a third party election service hired by the

union to conduct the election, rented a post office box

located at the Amoco United States Postal Service

(USPS) facility for the return of the voted ballots.

The investigation showed that on July 1, 2020, the

AAA rented a post office box at the Cardiss Collins

post office after the USPS permanently closed the

Amoco post office due to the COVID-19 pandemic

and instructed the AAA to secure a new post office

box at a different location.

You asserted during the investigation that the

Amoco post office box address may have been printed

on return ballot envelopes and that the AAA rented

the Cardiss Collins post office box so that voted

ballots could be routed to both the Amoco and the

Cardiss Collins post offices. The investigation disclosed

that the AAA only used the Cardiss Collins post

office for the election. No voted ballots or other

election-related materials were returned to the Amoco

post office, which the USPS permanently closed in

March of 2020.

In addition, the investigation disclosed that you

observed AAA personnel assemble and prepare the

ballots for mailing. While observing that process you

never mentioned to AAA personnel or any other indi­

viduals that you saw the Amoco post office box

address printed on return ballot envelopes. Further,

during the investigation candidates/observers, including

one of your witnesses, who observed AAA personnel

App.36a

assemble and prepare the ballots for mailing did not

corroborate your claim concerning the Amoco post

office box address being printed on return ballot

envelopes. The Act was not violated.

Next, you alleged that the union did not perform

a full and complete ballot reconciliation in front of

you at the ballot tally in that the AAA failed to count

the unused ballots for each craft and all the

undeliverable ballots, and did not provide you with a

certified list of members who requested duplicate

ballots or an affidavit from the printer stating the

number of original and duplicate ballots that were

printed for each craft. You further alleged that

observers were prevented from verifying voter eligibility

during the ballot tally because the AAA refused to

call out the name of the voter printed on each of the

return ballot envelopes.

Section 401(c) of the Act provides a general

mandate that a union provide adequate safeguards

to insure a fair election. Section 401(e) of the Act

requires a union to conduct its election of officers in

accordance with its constitution and bylaws insofar

as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of

the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 481(e); 29 C.F.R. § 452.3. Article

11, Section 6 of the NWIAL Local 7120 -constitution

delegates to the election committee the authority to

adopt rules concerning the election. The investigation

revealed that the 2008 Election Committee Rules

and Procedures (“election rules”) were applicable to

the 2020 election. The union provided a copy of the

election rules to you following the March 8, 2020

nominations meeting. The investigation showed that

neither the NWIAL Local 7120 constitution nor the

election rules required the election committee to

App.37a

reconcile the ballots at the ballot tally or provide you

with written documentation regarding duplicate ballot

requests or the printed ballots. In fact, the union did

not provide such documentation to any candidate or

observer. The investigation disclosed, however, that

during the ballot mailing process election officials

told you the number of ballots ordered from the

printer, the number of ballots mailed, and the number

of duplicate ballots requested. The Department’s review

of the contemporaneous notes you took during that

conversation with the election officials reflect infor­

mation concerning the printed, mailed, and duplicate

ballots.

Concerning the ballot reconciliation, the Depart­

ment’s review of the invoice prepared by the company

that printed the ballots indicated that 1,500 ballots

were printed for the election. The investigation dis­

closed that the AAA ordered thirty to fifty extra

ballots for each of the eight Local 7140 craft divisions

to accommodate members who had changed crafts or

had new home addresses and needed replacement

ballots. The printer’s invoice, however, did not indicate

the number of ballots printed or the number of

ballots received by AAA for each of the craft divisions.

However, the Department’s review of the election

records showed that the AAA mailed 1,311 original

ballots and 46 duplicate or challenged ballots to mem­

bers, and that 219 unused ballots were included in

the election records, for a total of 1,576 ballots. The

review also showed that there were 517 opened return

ballot envelopes included in the election records and

that one voter had returned an empty ballot envelope

that contained no ballot or secret ballot envelope.

Further review disclosed that 516 ballots were counted

App.38a

and included in the vote tally. The names printed

on the return ballot envelopes for these 516 ballots

matched the names crossed off the voter eligibility

list during the ballot tally indicating that an eligible

voter had returned a ballot.

Regarding the AAA’s failure to call out the names

of the voters printed on the return ballot envelopes

during the ballot count, Section 17 of the election

rules provides that the “votes” marked on each ballot

must be tallied by teams of three with one member of

a team calling out the votes marked on each ballot

and the other two members of that team recording

such votes on separate tally sheets. However, neither

the NWIAL Local 7120 constitution nor the election

rules prescribe procedures for counting or processing

the return ballot envelopes during the ballot tally.

The investigation showed, however, that AAA per­

sonnel counted the return ballot envelopes in teams

of two. Before opening each return ballot envelope

and removing its ballot, one member of a team called

out the name of the voter printed on the return ballot

envelope and the other member of that team verified

the voter’s eligibility by locating the voter’s name on

the voter eligibility list and then crossing the name

off the list. The Act was not violated.

In addition, you alleged that the number of votes

cast for the offices of clerk craft director 600, clerk

craft director 601, and the maintenance craft director

were very similar and that the same voter may have

cast multiple ballots for these offices. Section 401(c)

of the Act provides a general mandate that a union

provide adequate safeguards to insure a fair election.

The investigation showed that the races for clerk

craft director 600 and clerk craft director 601 were

App.39a

printed on the ballot but were unopposed and no

votes were cast for those offices. The Department’s

recount of the votes for maintenance craft director

disclosed that the incumbent and opposition candidates

received 84 votes and 54 votes, respectively.

The Department’s recount of the votes cast for

each opposed office found that there were no dis­

crepancies between the recount and the AAA’s vote

count. In addition, the Department’s review of all the

voted ballots found that none of them contained

distinctive markings or indentations indicating that

they had been marked in stacks or on top of one

another. Further review showed that there was no

evidence that numerous ballots had been marked

with the same distinct writing instrument or by the

same voter. There was no evidence of ballot tampering

or fraud. The Act was not violated.

You also alleged that the union did not offer

candidates the opportunity to proofread the ballots

before they were printed. Section 401(c) of the Act

provides a general mandate that a union provide

adequate safeguards to insure a fair election. Section

401(e) of the Act requires a union to conduct its election

of officers in accordance with its constitution and

bylaws insofar as they are not inconsistent with the

provisions of the Act. 29 C.F.R. § 452.3. The NWIAL

Local 7120 constitution and election rules do not

require the union to extend any such offer to candi­

dates. However, you stated during the investigation

that the AAA permitted you to review the ballots for

your own craft before ballots were mailed to members

after you requested to do so. The Act was not vio­

lated.

App.40a

You further alleged that fifteen retired members

were denied the right to vote when their names were

removed from the membership list in July of 2020.

Section 401(e) of the Act provides that members in

good standing have the right to vote for or otherwise

support the candidate or candidates of their choice.

29 U.S.C. § 481(e); 29 C.F.R. §§ 452.84, 93. Article 3,

Section 4(b) of the APWU constitution and bylaws

provides that retirees who continue to pay full union

dues and per capita taxes retain good standing and

the right to vote.

During the investigation you stated that the

names of retirees were removed from the membership

mailing list in July of 2020 based on a July 7, 2020

email from the AAA director to the election committee

chairperson. That email states in relevant part, “On

Tuesday, July 7, 2020 ... [attached is the last version

of the Master Mailing List from 3-16-20 that is

sorted by the ballot type the member will receive.

Can you let me know if any changes are needed to

this list? If anyone retired, was fired, transferred to a

different facility or craft, etc. Also, are any address

updates needed? Just let me know what needs to be

changed as soon as possible. ...”

The investigation disclosed that, although the

AAA director inquired in the July 7, 2020 email as to

whether the master mailing list needed to be updated,

the names of approximately 40 Local 7140 members

who had retired after the March 8, 2020 voter eligibi­

lity cutoff date but before the July 24, 2020 ballot

mailing remained on the master mailing list the AAA

used to mail the ballots. These retired members had

paid full union dues and per capita taxes during the

appropriate period and, thus, retained their good stand-

App.41a

ing. They were eligible to vote and were mailed

ballots. The Act was not violated.

You alleged that the cost of the election increased

from approximately $20,000 to $35,000. Even if this

allegation were true, this would not be covered by

the provisions of Title IV of the LMRDA.

Finally, you challenged the candidacy eligibility

of certain candidates in the election. You raised this

issue in the complaint you filed with the Department

on September 29, 2020. The Department’s Statement

of Reasons dated February 4, 2021 resolving that

complaint concluded that there was no violation of

the Act that may have affected the outcome of the

election.

For the reasons set forth above, the Department

has concluded that there was no violation of the

LMRDA that may have affected the outcome of the

election and I have closed the file regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Tracv L. Shanker

Chief Division of Enforcement

cc: Mark Dimondstein, President

American Postal Workers Union

1300 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

App.42a

Jackie Engelhart, President

American Postal Workers Union

NWIAL Local 7140

194 W Lake Street

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Beverly Dankowitz

Associate Solicitor for Civil Rights and LaborManagement

bee: CHIDO, DIS

File: 310-6020488(01)

OLM5/DOE/ /PPB N-511.9//__________________________________________________

Initials

Date

last Name

Title

04/27/2021

MELENDEZ

SHANKER

DOE hiv.

DOE Chief

Case String: 310602048801

LM: 071049

DOE Number: 9448

App.43a

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(AUGUST 10, 2021)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARY CORNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTY WALSH, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Secretary of Labor.

No. l:21-cv-02867

Before: Manish S. SHAH, Judge.,

Sunil R. HARJANI, Magistrate Judge.

I, Mary Corner is seeking a judicial review under

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a).

The district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1337(a), arising under the Labor Management

Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA” or

Act), 29 U.S.C. § 481.

The following is the reason, I am requesting the

district court for an administrative review:

1.

The United States Department of Labor,

Secretary decision not to file suit on my

J

App.44a

administrative complaint concerning the

2020 APWU, NWIAL Local 7140 Election.

2.

The Secretary fail to investigate my complaint

fairly and equal.

3.

My complaint to the Secretary was the NEAC

dismissed my appeal because they stated

there was no evidence that my July 6, 2020

Appeal to the NEAC was ever properly

appealed to the Local’s Election Committee

(NWIAL). Exhibit A. The Secretary’s State­

ment of Reasons never addressed the NEAC

dismissal.

4.

The Statement of Reasons never address the

issue as whether or not my complaint to the

2020 NWIAL Election Committee was filed

in a timely manner regarding the candidate’s

eligibility.

5.

The Secretary’s Statement of Reasons never

address whether or not, if the Treasurer did

in fact paid the candidates (none postal

workers) dues, should those dues be on the

LM-2 for verifications to the other candidates

that these dues had been paid by the

Treasurer; since these candidates are no

longer postal workers and they are not on

the dues check off list.

6.

The Secretary’s Statement of Reasons failed

to properly quote the NWIAL Constitution

regarding members not on the Dues CheckOff Lists. The Constitution states “In the

absence of dues check-off, dues shall be

payable on the first day of the month. It

App.45a

shall be the responsibility of each member

to pay his dues promptly.

7.

On page 5 of 5, 2nd paragraph regarding

candidacy eligibility, the Secretary made

reference to the Statement of Reasons dated

February 4, 2021 in which he stated no vio­

lation of the Act was committed that may

have affected the outcome of the election.

The issue was eligibility of the candidates.

Ineligible candidates on the ballot would

have an effect on the outcome of the election.

I am requesting the court to have the Secretary

to file suit to have the NWIAL, Local 7140 to re-run

a supervised election.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Mary Corner

Pro Se

557 47th Ave

Bellwood, IL 60104

630-268-4897

Mcorner75@yahoo.com

App.46a

EX. A TO COMPLAINT

LETTER FROM MARY CORNER TO

ELECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON

(MARCH 17, 2020)

To: Arlene Thomas-Benford

Election Committee Chairperson

P.O. Box 2017

Elmhurst, IL 60126

From: Mary Corner

Member in Good Standing

557 47th Ave

Bellwood, IL 60104

Dear Arlene or Election Committee (persons):

I am challenging the number of eligible members

for the following reasons:

1.

Accordingly to the LM-2, dated Mar 4, 2020,

we have career 1286 members, including 86

non dues paying members. Non career

members 127 including 12 non dues paying

members. I questioned 86 new members at

the February meeting. Eighty-six new mem­

bers were verified by the Treasurer

Bhupendra S. Patel at the March meeting.

2.

Where on the LM-2 that Treasurer Bhu­

pendra S. Patel paid the union dues of

Jackie Engelhart, Linda Duncan-Retel, Ray

Wience, and Joe Golden? Unless this can be

shown, their names should be removed from

the ballot.

App.47a

I need your answer today, all Nominee’s eligibility

should have been verified since one candidate has

already been removed.

In the Name of Jesus,

/s/ Mary Corner

Presidential Candidate

Received By: Arlene Thomas-Benford

Date: 3/17/2020

App.48a

LETTER FROM MARY CORNER

TO U.S. DOL INVESTIGATOR

(SEPTEMBER 28, 2020)

To: Ms. Claudia Guerra-Mazur, Investigator

U.S. DOL, OLMS, Chicago District Office

230 S. Dearborn, Suite 774

Chicago, IL 60604

Guerra.claudia@dol.gov

From: Mary Corner 557

47th Ave

Bellwood, IL 60104

I am appealing my dismissal of my complaint of

ineligible candidates in the NWIAL 2020 Election

from the National Election Appeals Committee (NEAC)

dated September 14, 2020. This dismissal stated “the

NEAC dismisses your appeal as there is no evidence

that the July 6 appeal to the NEAC was ever properly

and timely appealed to the Local Election Committee”,

I am appealing this dismissal for the following reasons:

1. Properly annealed: With this answer, in my

opinion the NEAC has failed to act in the best interest

of the membership as a whole. They are using their

power in the interest of the incumbents. The NEAC

has also relinquished their fiduciary responsibility

by making this decision at the end of the election.

Now I cannot make any clarification, adjustments or

challenges to the NEAC decision because now it falls

under Title IV and must be sent to the DOL.

The NWIAL Constitution states, “any member

who feel aggrieved in connection with the conduct of

a local election, including the nomination procedures,

shall filed his/her grievance with the election committee

App.49a

within seventy-two (72) hours after the grievance

arises”. There are two (2) ways of communication,

verbally and written. I did both (see attachments),

(a) An appointment was made to meet with the

NWIAL 2020 Election Committee on March 17, 2020

to review the mailing list and/or challenge the eligibility

of any candidate. On March 17, 2020, I requested

verification in person that Jackie Engelhart, Linda

Duncan-Retel, Ray Wience, and Joe Golden had paid

their dues in accordance to the NWIAL Constitution,

(b) On March 17, 2020,1 placed in writing questioning

the eligibility of Jackie Engelhart, Linda DuncanRetel, Ray Wience, and Joe Golden. Erika Williams

had showed me some invoices from the National

APWU; I told Erika Williams that I did not accept

those invoices from the National APWU as being

paid by the Treasurer and the invoices showed that

the dues were not paid according to our constitution.

I told Ms. Williams according to our LM-2; the

Treasurer did not pay the incumbents dues in 2019,

Ms. Williams stated, If I wanted anything else, I will

need to put it in writing. Then she walked out of the

room. I handed Ms. Vivian Henderson a letter, who

was watching us reviewing the mailing lists. I had

written a letter dated March 17, 2020 and had her to

signed it as receiver of the letter dated March 17,

2020. She had Erika Williams to make a copy for me

(see attached). Janice Alexander-Scott was witness

to what happened on March 17, 2020.

2. Timely Appealed: In my appeal to the NEAC,

I made it clear that I had not received a respond

from the NWIAL 2020 Election Committee as of July

6, 2020 regarding the eligibility of the incumbents.

Our Constitution does not state how long a candidate

App.50a

or member has to wait on an answer from the Local

Election Committee before appealing to the NEAC.

The NWIAL Constitution states, “any member who

feel aggrieved in connection with the conduct of a

local election, including the nomination procedures,

shall filed his/her grievance with the election committee

within seventy-two (72) hours after the . grievance

arises”. My grievance dealing with the eligibility of

Jackie Engelhart, Linda Duncan-Retel, Ray Wience,

and Joe Golden was filed on March 17, 2020 within

72 hrs. Due to the impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic,

this caused an interruption for the Local Election

Committee to respond because the Governor of Illinois

shut down all non-essential’s businesses.

My appeal was based on communications of the

Local Election Committee not responding to my protest

beginning March 17, 2020 and was interrupted due

to the Coronavirus Pandemic. On June 25, 2020, the

Election Committee and I began to discuss and

having written communication regarding the eligibility

of Jackie Engelhart, Linda Duncan-Retel, Ray Wience,

and Joe Golden that this election committee had

never answer or given a resolution on the eligibility

of the full time Officer and the retirees.

On July 6, 2020 I sent my eligibility complaint of

Jackie Engelhart, Linda Duncan-Retel, Ray Wience,

and Joe Golden to the NEAC because I had not

received a respond from the NWIAL 2020 Election

Committee and the stuffing of the ballots was schedule

for July 24, 2020. The election committee failed to

answer my complaint in a timely manner. The NWIAL

2020 Election Committee in March, 2020 verified

that Ms. Isabel Estrada was ineligible to be a candidate,

App.51a

therefore, why is it taken so long to verify whether or

not the incumbents were eligible?

I received a letter from the NEAC dated July 7,

2020 and so did the Election committee, requesting

additional information on or before July 24, 2020.

Meanwhile, the election committee sent me a letter

dated July 10, 2020; but I did not receive it until July

18, 2020 and they began again to discuss in emails

these incumbent’s eligibility, until I told them that

the eligibility complaint had been appeal to the NEAC

and they should have received the letter from the

NEAC dated July 7, 2020. And these comments should

be sent to the NEAC.

In conclusion, There is not any legitimate reason

why the NWIAL Constitution was not followed. All of

the NWIAL Election Committee Members are

experience union stewards with (many, many years)

with knowledge of the Constitution, except for the

alternate. All of the election committee persons has

been on an election committee in 2014, 2017, and

2020, except for the alternate. All were from our Carol

Stream Facility, except for one, Arlene ThomasBenford, who was the Chairperson. She was also the

Chairperson for the 2017 NWIAL Election Commit­

tee. No member was chosen from our Palatine Facility.

We are all equal and equality for all union members.

There should not have been any disparity treatment

to union members or candidates. This is a violation

of our constitutional rights. It was the responsibility

of the election committee to treat all candidates fair

and follow the guidelines requirements for eligibility

for all the candidates. This election committee exer­

cised disparity treatment for the candidate’s eligibi­

lity. An expedient verification of Ms. Estrada eligibility

App.52a

was done, the same should have been done for Jackie

Engelhart, Linda Duncan-Retel, Ray Wience, and

Joe Golden. If, the Treasurer did in fact pay the

incumbent’s dues, this should be reflected on the

NWIAL LM-2 dated March 4,2020; but it is not.

As I stated to the NEAC in my appeal to them

dated July 6, 2021 had not received a respond or

decision from the local election committee regarding

my challenge to the eligibility of the incumbents Jackie

Engelhart, Linda Duncan-Retel, Ray Wience, and Joe

Golden. As of today, September 28, 2020 by appeal to

the DOL, I still have not received a respond or deci­

sion from the local election committee regarding my

challenge to the eligibility of the incumbents.

I am respectfully, requesting the DOL to re-run

the NWIAL 2020 election within the guidelines of the

NWIAL Constitution. Thanking you in advance, Your

effort and time will be greatly appreciated.

In Jesus Name,

/s/ Mary Corner

Presidential Candidate

Enel:

1. Ltr. Dated 3/17/2020 To NWIAL Elec. Comm.

2. NEAC Dismissal Dated 9/14/2020

3. NEAC Ltr. Dated 7/7/2020

4. Email to NEAC Dated 7/6/2020

5. 6/25/2020 Email between Arlene and

6. 7/18/2020 Additional Info to NEAC

7. Arlene Ltr. Dated 7/10/2020

App.53a

LM2 STATEMENT B-RECEIPTS

AND DISBURSEMENT

File Number: 071-479

Cash Receipts

SCH

47. From Members for

Disbursement on

Their Behalf

Cash Disbursement

64. On Behalf of

Individual Members

Amount

$0

SCH

Amount

$0

App.54a

RESPOND FROM MARY CORNER TO THE

CIRCUIT TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER

(JULY 7, 2022)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

MARY CORNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARTIN J. WALSH, Secretary of Labor

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-1428

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. l:21-cv-02867 Manish S. Shah, District Judge.

I want to know why I was denied filing a Reply

Brief. My Reply Brief was due July 1, 2022.

The NWIAL, APWU, Local 7140 election is held

every three years. Each election we have had the

same persons which is union stewards on the election

committee. Same election administrator Matthew

Lacey of AAA conducting our election and the same

DOL investigator, Michelle Forsythe. Therefore, it

has been deemed that all of my filings would receive

an unfavorable decision.

App.55a

I do not think this filing is frivolous nor is it

weaker than its predecessors. This one is stronger than

any of my filings. This is the reason the Secretary

refused to investigate my complaint. 402(b) requires

the secretary to investigate a complaint. I did not file

a complaint regarding all of the officers in Local 7140;

only the none postal workers whose dues should be

on the LM-2. This complaint was filed March 17, 2020

with the NWIAL 2020 Election Committee, requesting

proof of payment of union dues according to the NWIAL

LM-2 and requesting removal of these candidates [26]

at 41. Same complaint appealed to the NEAC, July 6,

2020 [26] at 30-31, (the NEAC opt out). Same complaint

appealed to the DOL, dated September 28, 2020 receiv­

ed September 29, 2020 [26] at 26-28 by the DOL.

Regarding verification of the incumbents, (which

are none postal workers), payments of dues, the LM-2

is an official record of all money disbursed by the

NWIAL Treasurer.

For these incumbents, LM-2 is an official record

of 100% payment of dues for them. Per capita tax

statements are a small percentage of the dues. The

Postal Service’s payroll statements and dues-check

off statements is for 6 months for one incumbent and

the balance of his dues should be on the LM-2, dated

March 4, 2020. All the other incumbent (None Postal

Workers) 100% payment of dues belongs on the

NWIAL LM-2, dated March 4, 2020. The Local dues

records; where were they March 17, 2020, when I

challenged the none Postal Workers payment of dues?

The Local Dues record should be noted on the LM-2,

dated March 4, 2020, but it was not. .. No, the LM-2

is not just any form. It is the form. This form is

equivalent to a business/private citizens tax returned.

App.56a

In this order it stated, “the secretary relied on

the Local’s dues records, the Postal Service payroll

statement’, dues check off statements, and per capita

statements. None of these items had exhausted the

statutory requirements. In Wirtz v. Local unions No.

406, 406-A, 406-B and 406-C, 254 F.Supp. 962 (E.D. La.

1966), this court stated “He (referring to the Secretary)

states that it is wholly unrealistic to restrict the

litigation to the particular matters protested by the

individual complainant”. However, none of the matters

which the Secretary alleges in this suit was complained

of by the member or members in the internal protest

to the union. Therefore, the express statutory require­

ment of exhaustion of remedies by the member of the

labor organization has not been complied with . . .

Though we are in agreement with the Secretary that

these restrictions are unreasonable, arbitrary and in

violations of the Act, it is clear to us that it was the

intention of Congress in passing the Act to require

exhaustion of internal union remedies as Section 402

(a) expressly provides ...” See Wirtz v. Local Union No.

125, Internatl Hod Carriers’, Etc., N.D. Ohio, 1964, 231

F.Supp. 590; Wirtz v. Local Union No. 9, International

Union of Operating Engineers, 51 L.C. ^ 19,579 (D.C.

Colo., 1965). ...”

No, I do not want anyone to commit a crime for

me. I expect for my complaint to be investigated as it

was written. Nothing added and nothing taken away.

I am standing by what is written in my brief regarding

18U.S. C. § 1001.

This Order stated “She wants the judiciary to

ignore the statement and look at the form she

submitted”. No, I want the judiciary to review my

complaint as well as the SOR. My complaint contained

App.57a

more than just a form. I am not asking for any dis­

covery, no testimony, and no judicial findings of fact

or credibility assessments. Bachowski states that the

SOR must have information concerning a members’

complaint; which the SOR failed to have . . . “If the

allegations of a complaint are contradicted by docu­

ments made a part thereof, the documents control and

the court need not accept as true allegation of the

complaint”. Feick v. Fleener, 653 F.2d 69, 75, n.4 (2d

Cir. 1981) and United States ex. Rel. Sommers v.

Dixion, 524 F.Supp. 83,85 (ND. N. Y. 1981) aff’d per

curiam, 709 F.2d. 173 (2d Cir. 1983). This rule also

applies to the written instrument supplied by the

defendant in their support of their rule 12(b)(6) motion

to dismiss. Yak v. Bank Brussels Lambert, 252 F.3d

127 (2001).

Dunlop v. Bachowski, (1975) No. 74-466, June 2,

1975, United States Supreme Court, in the absence

of express prohibition in the LMRDA ...” The question

is phrased in terms of prohibition rather than authori­

zation because a survey of “our” Cases shows that

judicial review of a final agency action by an aggrieved

person will not be cut off unless there is a persuasive

reasons to believe that such was the purpose of

Congress”. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S.

136, 140 (1967). [OJnly upon a showing of clear and

convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent

should the courts restrict access to judicial review”.

Id at 141. See, Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367, 379-380

(1962), Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401

U.S. 402, 410 (1971).

/

App.58a

For all the reasons listed above and this is not a

frivolous appeal. As an aggrieved union member, there

is no other means to defend my rights. I should not

be subject to financial or other penalties impose by this

court.

Respectfully Submitted in

Jesus Name

/s/ Mary Corner

Pro Se

557 47th Ave

Bellwood, IL 60104

630-268-4897

App.59a

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

(OCTOBER 29, 2020)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Labor-Management Standards

Subjects (s)

Postal Workers, American, AFL-CIO

Northwest Illinois Area Local (NWIAL)

Local 7140

194 W. Lake Street

Elmhurst, IL 60126

LM: 071-479

Program:

0 Election Investigation

Case Number

310-6020097

Office

CHIDO

Status

Closed

Date Complaint Received by DOL:

Filed under Section 402(a)(1) on September 29,

2020

App.60a

Date and Type of Election:

Mail ballot originally scheduled for April 23,

2020 was rescheduled for September 1, 2020 due

to the Covid-19 pandemic

Complaint:

Marry Corner

557 47th Ave.

Bellwood, IL 60104

Telephone: (630) 263-4897 (cell)

Constitution/Bylaws:

Constitution and Bylaws, American Postal

Workers Union, August 23, 2018

Constitution, Northwest Illinois Area Local,

American Postal Workers Union, November 2019

Parent Body Position on Invocation/Exhaustion:

The APWU does not consider Corner’s September

29, 2020 complaint to be timely or properly before

the Secretary of Labor because her allegation were

not properly protested and/or appealed to the

NEAC.

Subpoenas Issued: None

Settlement Agreement: None

Summary of Violations Letter: None

Time Waiver(s): A Single time waiver signed

October 28, 2020

Filing Date: November 28, 2020 (Saturday)

Original Filing date

December 14, 2020 - Filing date

extended by waiver

App.61a

Prepared By: (b)(7)(C)

Approved By:

/s/ Michael J. Purcell

District Director

Date: 10-29-2020