The California Court of Appeal has affirmed a lower court's ruling that dismissed claims against former union leaders Andreas Jung and Maribel Alvarenga. The court found that their lawsuit against Adam Acosta and others was subject to California's anti-SLAPP statute, which protects free speech and petition rights. This decision, filed on June 25, 2026, is significant as it reinforces the protections offered to individuals participating in union disciplinary proceedings.
The case, Jung v. Acosta (docket number B340726), arose after Jung and Alvarenga were found guilty of violating their union's policies against anti-LGBTQ bigotry, racism, and sexist behavior. Following their removal from their positions within the union, they filed a lawsuit claiming that Acosta and others wrongfully disclosed confidential documents during the judicial panel proceedings that led to their expulsion. This ruling impacts not only the plaintiffs but also sets a precedent regarding the limits of legal recourse in similar union-related disputes.
Background
Andreas Jung was the former president of Council 36 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO. Maribel Alvarenga served as his executive assistant. Their conflict began when Acosta, a former employee of Council 36, filed a complaint against them in 2019. This complaint led to mediation and eventually a judicial panel hearing, where Jung and Alvarenga were found guilty of serious misconduct.
The judicial panel proceedings were conducted under the guidelines of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which mandates fair procedures for union disciplinary actions. After the panel's decision, which resulted in their removal from their positions, Jung and Alvarenga filed a lawsuit against Acosta and several other defendants, alleging various claims including breach of contract and conspiracy.
In their lawsuit, Jung and Alvarenga claimed that Acosta improperly disclosed text messages and a mediation brief that were supposed to be confidential. They argued that these disclosures led to their wrongful removal from the union. The defendants responded by filing a special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, asserting that the plaintiffs' claims were based on protected activities related to the judicial panel proceedings.
The Ruling
The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision to grant the anti-SLAPP motions filed by Acosta and the other defendants. The court ruled that the judicial panel proceedings constituted "official proceedings authorized by law" under the anti-SLAPP statute. The judges stated, "The judicial panel proceedings were mandated by federal law, specifically, the LMRDA, which provides that no member of a labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined unless specific procedures are followed."
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their claims had the requisite minimal merit to proceed. The judges noted that Alvarenga could not prove she was a third-party beneficiary of the mediation and settlement agreements. They also highlighted that the conspiracy claim was not valid since conspiracy is not an independent tort but requires an actual tort to be actionable.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for union members and the broader labor movement. It reinforces the protections provided by the anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to prevent lawsuits aimed at chilling free speech and participation in public affairs, including union activities. The court's decision illustrates the importance of protecting individuals involved in union disciplinary processes from retaliatory lawsuits.
Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that judicial panel proceedings within unions are considered official proceedings under the law, thus granting them the same protections as other legal proceedings. This could deter future claims against union officials for actions taken during such proceedings, potentially affecting how unions manage internal disputes.
What's Next
The plaintiffs have the option to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court. However, it remains to be seen if they will pursue this route. There are currently no related cases pending that could influence this decision.