No. 4-307 / 03-0906.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
June 9, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Lawrence H. Fautsch, Judge.
The petitioner appeals from the district court’s order granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss its declaratory judgment action for lack of standing. AFFIRMED.
Scott Scoldon and Andrea Hoeschen of Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller Brueggeman, S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for appellant.
Barry Lindahl, Dubuque, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
EISENHAUER, J.
Teamsters Local Union No. 421 (Union) appeals from the district court’s order granting the City of Dubuque’s (City) motion to dismiss its declaratory judgment action. The Union contends the district court erred in concluding it did not have standing to bring the action. We review its claim for corrections of errors at law. Meier v. Sennecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).
The City of Dubuque’s administrative policy requires employees hired after August 31, 1980 to maintain their principal place of residence within the City’s corporate limits or within six-and-one-half miles of the corporate limits. On April 23, 2002, a City employee and Union member was notified he was in violation of the administrative policy because his residence was more than six-and-one-half miles beyond the corporate limits. The Union filed a petition for declaratory judgment, seeking a determination that certain City employees who are Union members are not critical municipal employees within the meaning of Iowa Code section 400.17 (2001). The Union alleges the residency requirement exceeds the provision of section 400.17, which states in relevant part:
Employees shall not be required to be a resident of the city in which they are employed, but they shall become a resident of the state at the time such appointment or employment begins and shall remain a resident of the state during employment. Cities may set reasonable maximum distances outside of the corporate limits of the city that police officers, fire fighters and other critical municipal employees may live.
Iowa Code § 400.17 (emphasis added).
The City moved to dismiss the Union’s petition for declaratory judgment, alleging it lacked standing to bring the action. After a hearing, the district court granted the City’s motion.
The United State Supreme Court has recognized that an association may have standing to assert the claims of its members even where it has suffered no injury from the challenged activity. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 342, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2441, 53 L.Ed.2d 383, 393
(1977). Standing is conferred on an association where:
(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
Id. at 343, 97 S.Ct. at 2441, 53 L. Ed.2d at 394. The district court concluded the Union did not meet the third prerequisite to associational standing because the requested relief required the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
We find no error in the district court’s conclusion. The determination of whether an employee is a critical employee turns on the job duties of each individual employee. As such, participation of individual members of the Union is necessary. Accordingly, the Union lacks standing. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.