Opinion
Civ. No. JFM-99-927.
July 28, 1999.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, Michael Feaster, has brought this action against defendant Baltimore City Lodge #3 Fraternal Order of Police ("FOP") pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). Two motions are currently pending: FOP's motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and FOP's motion to disqualify Feaster's attorney, Mr. Preston Frazier. The motion to dismiss will be granted and the motion to disqualify will be denied as moot.
I.
Feaster served as a Baltimore City Police Officer from 1986 until May 12, 1998. He is still a member of FOP Lodge #3, the defendant organization. This action arises from a decision, made subsequent to May 12, 1998, that Feaster would not receive a "special" disability retirement.
II.
The issue presented is whether the LMRA allows this Court jurisdiction over Feaster's claim. Section 185(a) of the statute states that:
Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.
At § 152(2), the LMRA defines employer to exclude "the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation or . . . any State or Political subdivision thereof."
Although Feaster is not suing Baltimore City, but is only suing the labor organization, it is clear that the LMRA restricts federal jurisdiction to cases and controversies involving "employers" and "employees" as defined by the act. The Fourth Circuit has not directly addressed the issue, but several other circuits have found that individuals who are employed by political subdivisions cannot bring any type of suit under the LMRA. See, e.g., Stasburger v. Board of Educ., Hardin County, 143 F.3d 351, 359 (7th Cir. 1998); Ayers v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 666 F.2d 441, 444 (9th Cir. 1982); Crilly v. Southeastern Pa. Transp., 529 F.2d 1355, 1363 (3d Cir. 1976). The Baltimore City Police Department is a political subdivision of either the State of Maryland or the City of Baltimore. Compare Clea v. City of Baltimore, 541 A.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (determining that the Baltimore City Police Department is a political subdivision of the State of Maryland for the purposes of tort claims) with Hector v. Weglin, 558 F. Supp. 194, 199 (D. Md. 1982) (determining that the Baltimore City Police Department is a political subdivision of the City of Baltimore for the purposes of claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). As such, the Baltimore City Police Department is not an employer as defined by the LMRA, and this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over Feaster's claims.
For these reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted and its motion to disqualify plaintiff's attorney will be denied as moot. A separate order to that effect is being entered herewith.