Letter Carrier David Noble filed a lawsuit against NALC President William H. Young, President Emeritus Vincent R. Sombrotto, and 10 other former NALC officers. The suit, filed in February,1994 alleged that the officers breached their fiduciary duties under federal law by accepting in-town expenses, convention per diem payments, and FICA reimbursements. On  September 30, 2005 the District Court found in favor of the officers and the Union on all issues.

However, on May 16, 2008 the DC Court of Appeals reversed in part and vacated in part where:
1) plaintiff presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of misuse of reimbursements for union related activities;
2) there was a question as to whether defendants used their allowances for personal benefit rather than on legitimate union expenses; and
3) there was no factual basis for a mootness determination regarding a section 201(c) claim for release of documents.

According to the court decision:
The majority rejects Noble’s claims concerning the “per diem” expenses; in so doing, it misconceives both the record and the nature of his challenge. Because the district court failed to rule on the relevant factual issues–and because this court cannot make the necessary findings on its own–the claim should be remanded for further development of the record.

The other interesting part of this opinion are the comments found at the bottom of page 45. Here is what it says:
Thanks to the court’s decision, pilfering union chieftains should sleep more easily tonight. At least in this Circuit, their interpretation of union rules to permit their self-enrichment will be deemed reasonable whenever the interpretation passes a laugh test, free from any need to be consistent with the union’s efforts to constrain its officers’ self-help.

note: Check out the case noble vs sombrotto