It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!

Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional
Case number: 0:19-cv-17217
Status: Pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Important dates
Filed: Aug. 15, 2018
District court decision:
Nov. 26, 2019
Appeals court decision:
June 23, 2022
District court outcome
The district court dismissed the lawsuit.
Appeals court outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

This case is one of over a hundred public-sector union lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. These pages were updated through February 2023 and may not reflect subsequent case developments. For more information about Ballotpedia's coverage of public-sector union policy in the United States, click here. Contact our team to suggest an update.

Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 23, 2022.[1] The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California's November 2019 dismissal of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs filed a complaint following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and fee collection, as well as requests for an injunction prohibiting the union from collecting fees without “clear affirmative consent,” a refund of all agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees. In Janus, the high court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support unions' non-political activities.[2][3][4][5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The lead plaintiff was Sean Allen. The lead defendant was Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association.
  • The issue: Can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding agency fees paid prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which held that such fees are unconstitutional?
  • The presiding judge: Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Circuit Judges Bridget S. Bade and Patrick Bumatay, and District Judge William K. Sessions—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.

    • Procedural history

    The lead plaintiff was Sean Allen, represented by counsel from Talcott Franklin P.C., Benbrook Law Group, PC, and Mitchell Law PLLC. The lead defendant was the Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association, represented by counsel from Mastagni Holstedt, APC. For a complete list of plaintiffs and defendants in this suit, click here[2][3] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[2][3][4][5][1]

    • August 15, 2018: The plaintiffs in Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional first filed their lawsuit on August 15, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and fee collection, as well as requests for an injunction prohibiting the union from collecting fees without “clear affirmative consent,” a refund of all agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees.
    • April 9, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs answered with a reply.
    • September 11, 2019: The court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim with leave to amend. The plaintiffs did not submit an amended complaint before the court, therefore, on November 26, 2019, the court issued an order dismissing the claim with prejudice.
    • November 1, 2019: The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • February 28, 2020: The plaintiffs submitted their opening brief for the appeal.
    • June 23, 2022: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    District court decision

    On September 11, 2019, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. issued an order in favor of the defendants, dismissing the case with leave to submit an amended complaint. When no such submission was made, an order was issued on November 26, 2019, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim with prejudice.[2] Judge England wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “

    Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for refund of unconstitutionally compelled payments fails because Defendants are entitled to a good faith defense. [...] This foregoing analysis applies just as forcefully to Plaintiffs’ claims for refunds here, which are materially identical. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are likewise DISMISSED.

    Nor is Plaintiff Allen entitled to relief on the second cause of action for violation of California Government Code § 1157.12(b). According to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), “[a]fter Janus, the union violated Mr. Allen’s constitutional rights by taking membership dues from his paycheck even though the union knew full well that Mr. Allen was not a member of the union.” FAC, ¶ 55. After being informed that it should cease withholding fees from Mr. Allen’s paycheck, the union purportedly withdrew dues from two of his paychecks before it rectified the situation and refunded those moneys. Id., ¶ 26. It is unclear to the Court how the union’s de minimis deduction and return of funds from two paychecks—funds that were apparently not expended toward the union’s collective bargaining purposes in any event—give rise to a constitutional violation. Regardless, those funds were returned, and Mr. Allen’s claim is thus moot. [6]

    		”
    —Judge England

    Judge England was appointed by President George W. Bush (R).

    Appellate court decision

    On June 23, 2022, a three-judge panel—Circuit Judges Bridget S. Bade and Patrick Bumatay, and District Judge William K. Sessions—affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. The panel's per curiam opinion stated:[1]

    “

    Because, under Danielson v. Inslee, unions get a good faith defense to a claim for a refund of pre-Janus agency fees ... and municipalities’ tort liability for proprietary actions is the same as private parties ... the County is also entitled to a good faith defense to retrospective § 1983 liability for collecting pre-Janus agency fees. [6]

    		”

    Bumatay wrote in a concurring opinion, "Danielson was wrong to create a 'principles of equality and fairness' test. Even if a proper look at common law history points in the same direction in this case, that was 'mere fortuity.' ... Reaching the right result is no excuse for shifting our focus away from the common law inquiry required by the Court and 'substitut[ing] our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress.' ... But since we are bound by precedent, I concur fully in the per curiam opinion."[1]

    Legal context

    Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

    See also: Janus v. AFSCME

    On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), ruling that public-sector unions cannot compel non-member employees to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union activities.[7]

    This decision overturned precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977. In Abood, the high court held that it was not a violation of employees' free-speech and associational rights to require them to pay fees to support union activities from which they benefited (e.g., collective bargaining, contract administration, etc.). These fees were commonly referred to as agency fees or fair-share fees.[7]

    Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion for the court majority in Janus, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Alito wrote, "Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled."[7]

    Related litigation

    To view a complete list of the public-sector labor lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked between 2019 and 2023, click here.

    Number of federal lawsuits by circuit

    Between 2019 and 2023, Ballotpedia tracked 191 federal lawsuits related to public-sector labor laws. The chart below depicts the number of suits per federal judicial circuit (i.e., the jurisdictions in which the suits originated).

    Public-sector labor lawsuits on Ballotpedia

    See also: Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023

    Click show to view a list of cases with links to our in-depth coverage.

    v • e
    Public-sector labor lawsuits
    Federal lawsuits

    Adams v. Teamsters Union Local 429 • Akers v. Maryland State Education Association • Aliser v. SEIU California • Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association • Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional • Anderson v. SEIU Local 503 • Babb v. California Teachers Association • Baisley v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers • Belgau v. Inslee • Bennett v. AFSCME • Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521 • Bierman v. Dayton • Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar • Boyle v. SEIU California • Brice v. California Faculty Association • California v. Azar • Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association • Carey v. Inslee • Casanova v. IAM Local 701 • Chandavong et al. v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association et al. • Cook v. Brown • Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association • Crowe v. Oregon State Bar • Cruz v. Union Independiente Autentica de Empleados de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados • Danielson v. Inslee • Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association • Doughty v. State Employees Association of New Hampshire, SEIU, Local 1984 • Durst v. OEA • Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles • File v. Hickey • Fischer v. Murphy • Fisk v. Inslee • Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Fleck v. Wetch • Grega v. Council of New Jersey State College Locals • Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association • Gruber v. Oregon State Bar • Guppy v. City of Los Angeles • Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5 • Hamidi v. SEIU • Hannay v. Kent State • Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association • Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 • Hernandez v. AFSCME California • Hoekman v. Education Minnesota • Hough v. SEIU Local 521 • Imhoff v. California Teachers Association • Jackson v. Napolitano • James v. SEIU Local 688 • Janus v. AFSCME • Jarchow v. Wisconsin • Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State • Wenzig v. SEIU Local 668 • Kopie v. International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees • Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association • Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al. • LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council • Lee v. Ohio Education Association • Leitch v. AFSCME • Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Loescher v. Teamsters Local 320 • Lutter v. JNESO • Mandel v. SEIU Local 73 • Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299 • Martin v. California Teachers Association • Masuo v. AFSCME AFL-CIO • Matthews v. United Teachers of Los Angeles • Mattos v. AFSCME Council 3 • Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District • McCain v. Ventura County Federation of College Teachers, AFT Local 1828 • McCollum v. NEA-Alaska • McCutcheon v. CWA Local 7076 • McDonald v. Firth • Mendez v. CTA • Miller v. Inslee • Misja v. PSEA • Molina v. SEIU Local 668 • Mooney v. Illinois Education Association • Nearman v. SEIU Local 503 • Neely v. AFSCME Council 13 • Nguyen v. Admin. and Residual Employees Union • Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union • O'Callaghan v. Drake • Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group • Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union • Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11 • Oliver v. SEIU Local 668 • Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers • Penning v. SEIU Local 1021 • Polk v. Yee • Popp v. ALPAI • Piekarski v. AFSCME Council 5 • Quirarte v. UDW AFSCME Local 3930 • Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine • Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141 • Routh v. Inslee • Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13 • Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices • Schumaker v. Inslee • Seager v. UTLA • Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress • Smith v. AFSCME Council No. 8 • Smith v. New Jersey Education Association • Smith v. Bieker • Solomon v. AFSCME District Council 37 • Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503 • Sweeney v. Raoul • Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians • Taylor v. Heath • Thompson v. AFSCME Council 89, Local 4013 • Thompson v. Marietta Education Association • Thulen v. AFSCME • Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Org. • Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors • Weyandt v. PSCOA • Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 • Wilford v. National Education Association • Williams v. PSEA • Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees • Yates v. Hillsboro Unified School District • Yohn v. California Teachers Association

    See also

    External links

    Case documents

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Opinion," June 23, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 "PacerMonitor", “Allen et al v. Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association et al,” accessed April 24, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 "PacerMonitor", “Sean Allen, et al v. Santa Clara County Correctional, et al,” accessed April 24, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 "PacerMonitor", “Allen et al v. Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association et al: Plaintiffs’ Class-Action Complaint Jury Trial Demanded,” August 15, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 "PacerMonitor", “Allen et al v. Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association et al: Order to Dismiss,” September 11, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al., June 27, 2018
    v • e
    Public-sector union policy in the United States
    Public-sector union policy in the United StatesBPstarlogo.png
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Allen_v._Santa_Clara_County_Correctional&oldid=9203532"