Food and Commercial Workers v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 2 (1996)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Cite as: 517 U. S. 544 (1996)

Opinion of the Court

ment that an organization suing as representative include at least one member with standing to present, in his or her own right, the claim pleaded by the association is an Article III necessity for the association's representative suit. Hunt's second prong is complementary to the first, because it raises an assurance that the association's litigators will themselves have a stake in the resolution of the dispute, and thus be in a position to serve as the defendant's natural adversary. But once an association has satisfied Hunt's first and second prongs assuring adversarial vigor in pursuing a claim for which member Article III standing exists, it is difficult to see a constitutional necessity for anything more. The third prong is best seen as focusing on matters of administrative convenience and efficiency, not on elements of a case or controversy. Circumstantial evidence of that prong's prudential nature is seen in the wide variety of other contexts in which a statute, federal rule, or accepted common-law practice permits one person to sue on behalf of another, even where damages are sought. See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. 2000e-5(f)(1). Pp. 554-558. 50 F. 3d 1426, reversed and remanded.

Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Laurence Gold argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were George Murphy, Renee L. Bowser, Marsha S. Berzon, and Jonathan P. Hiatt.

Alan Jenkins argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Allen H. Feldman, Nathaniel I. Spiller, and Mark S. Flynn.

Thomas C. Walsh argued the cause for respondent. With

him on the brief were Michael G. Biggers, James N. Foster, Jr., Michelle M. Cain, and Robert D. Pickle.*

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act or Act), 102 Stat. 890, 29 U. S. C. 2101 et seq., obligates certain employers to give workers or their union

*Kary L. Moss filed a brief for the American Federation of Government Employees et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.


Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007