Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Babb v. California Teachers Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Babb v. California Teachers Association
Case number: 0:19-cv-55692
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: June 5, 2018
District court decision:
May 8, 2019
Appeals court decision:
Jan. 26, 2022
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME.
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.

Babb v. California Teachers Association was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 26, 2022.[1] The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's May 2019 dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs filed an initial 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 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 Georgia Babb. The lead defendant was the California Teachers 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 judges: Judge Josephine Staton presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Senior Judges Barry Silverman and Richard Clifton, and Judge Andrew Hurwitz—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's dismissal of the case.

    • Procedural history

    The lead plaintiff was Georgia Babb, represented by attorneys from Benbrook Law Group, PC, Talcott Franklin P.C., Hellmich Law Group, and Mitchell Law PLLC. The lead defendant was the California Teachers Association, represented by attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP. 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]

    • June 5, 2018: The plaintiffs in Babb v. California Teachers Association first filed their lawsuit on June 5, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint following Janus v. AFSCME that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and fee collection, as well as requests for a refund of all agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees.
    • March 29, 2019: A hearing was held regarding the defendants’ motion to dismiss and oral arguments were heard.
    • May 8, 2019: The district court issued an opinion and order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with prejudice.
    • June 18, 2019: The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • January 26, 2022: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's dismissal of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On May 8, 2019, Judge Josephine Staton issued an opinion and order in favor of the defendants, granting their motion to dismiss, with prejudice. Judge Staton wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “

    The question here – one not addressed by Harper -is whether Union Defendants are precluded from asserting a good faith defense in this context, where Plaintiffs made payments for agency fees later determined to be unconstitutional. For the most part, the cases Plaintiffs cite have nothing to say about a good faith defense to a § 1983 claim. More significantly, the cases cited involve the return of discrete and identifiable property, not a refund of fees paid. ... In that sense, Plaintiffs' argument here is a refrain of their claim that the most analogous state law claim is one for conversion; a wrong for which the remedy might be replevin – the return of the specifically stolen property. As the Court noted above, that is not the gist of this case. It cannot be overlooked that the pre- Janus regime consisted of an obligation by the Plaintiffs to pay fees to the Union Defendants, and a concomitant obligation by the Union Defendants to use those fees to bargain on Plaintiffs' behalf. While the Supreme Court has determined that such an arrangement violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, it is not the case that the agency fees remain in a vault, to be returned like a seized automobile. As the Union Defendants cannot retract their performance on this implied contract, it would be inequitable to force them to repay Plaintiffs' agency fees.

    In short, the cases before the Court present a fundamentally different issue than those cited by the Plaintiffs. The Union Defendants did not merely rely on a presumptively valid state statute; they relied on the 40-year-precedent of Abood.[6]

    		”
    —Judge Staton

    Judge Staton was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate Court Decision

    On January 26, 2022, a three-judge panel—Senior Judges Barry Silverman and Richard Clifton, and Judge Andrew Hurwitz—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit. The panel's memorandum stated:[1]

    “

    The parties agree that this court’s intervening decision in Danielson v. Inslee ... controls the outcome of this appeal. The district court properly dismissed appellants’ action because a public sector union can, as a matter of law, 'invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it collected' prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31.[6]

    		”


    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 PacerMonitor, "Memorandum," January 26, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Georgia Babb et al v. California Teachers Association et al,” accessed April 30, 2020 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacermonitor" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacermonitor" defined multiple times with different content
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 PacerMonitor, “Georgia Babb, et al v. CTA, et al,” accessed April 30, 2020 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacerappeal" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacerappeal" defined multiple times with different content
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 PacerMonitor, “Babb v. California Teachers Association: Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Class-Action Complaint,” February 27, 2019 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "complaint" defined multiple times with different content
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Case Text, “Babb v. California Teachers Association: Opinion,” May 8, 2019 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content
    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=Babb_v._California_Teachers_Association&oldid=9203550"