Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521
Case number: 3:18-cv-04312
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: July 17, 2018
Terminated: June 23, 2020
District court outcome
Class action settlement.

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.

Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521 was closed after a class action settlement was reached in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2020. 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 agency fee collection, as well as requests for an injunction prohibiting the union from the continued collection of fees, a refund of all agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees. In Janus, the Supreme Court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support unions' non-political activities.[1][2][3][4][5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Jorge Bermudez, Virginia Valdez, and Angelica Pedrozo. The defendants were the County of Santa Clara and the Service Employees International Union, Local 521.
  • 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 Vince Girdhari Chhabria presided over the district court proceedings. Judge Chhabria was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).
  • The outcome: The parties reached a class action settlement.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Jorge Bermudez, Virginia Valdez, and Angelica Pedrozo. They were represented by attorneys from Banys, P.C. The defendants were County of Santa Clara and the Service Employees International Union, Local 521. The County of Santa Clara was represented by attorneys from the Office Of County Counsel and Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. SEIU, Local 521 was represented by attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP and Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5]

    • July 17, 2018: The plaintiffs in Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521 first filed their lawsuit on July 17, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs filed a complaint following Janus v. AFSCME that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and agency fee collection, as well as requests for an injunction prohibiting the union from the continued collection of fees, a refund of all agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees.
    • December 8, 2018: The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim as moot.
    • March 14, 2019: A hearing was held to consider the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissal.
    • April 16, 2019: The court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims to a refund and damages. However, a full dismissal of all aspects of the case was not granted due to special circumstances around Virginia Valdez’s termination of union membership.
    • September 6, 2019: A settlement hearing resulted in an agreement on the terms of a proposed class settlement.
    • January 9, 2020: A hearing was held to certify a class motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
    • May 22, 2020: Judge Vince Chhabria granted final approval of the class action settlement.
    • June 23, 2020: Chhabria issued a judgment in the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    On May 22, 2020, Judge Vince Girdhari Chhabria granted final approval of the class action settlement. The order stated:[5]

    “

    The Court has carefully considered the motions together with all exhibits thereto, all the filings related to the Settlement, the arguments of counsel, and the record in this case. The Court hereby finds that the Settlement and Settlement Agreement are sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court further finds that the settlement class, as defined in the Court’s preliminary approval order (Dkt. No. 120) satisfies the prerequisites for maintaining a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees costs and service enhancement to be fair, reasonable and appropriate. ...

    Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court certifies the following Settlement Class: “All public-sector members of Local 521 from September 10, 2015 through the Preliminary Approval Date who: 1) submitted to Defendants a written request to terminate their membership with Local 521, and thereafter continued to have union dues deducted from their paychecks based on a temporal limitation on resigning from union membership, or 2) who submitted an Employee Authorization for Payroll Deduction of Union Dues or Service Fees form with the “Service Fee” box checked, and thereafter continued to have union dues deducted from their paychecks based on Local 521’s policy of not treating such forms as indicating a request to resign from union membership.”[6]

    		”

    On April 16, 2019, Chhabria issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim, with the exception of claims made by Virginia Valdez, who stated she was prevented from withdrawing from the union for a period of time despite repeated requests to withdraw. Chhabria wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    Moreover, considering this issue outside the rubric of good-faith reliance, there is a strong argument that when the highest judicial authority has previously deemed conduct constitutional, reversal of course by that judicial authority should never, as a categorical matter, result in retrospective monetary relief based on that conduct. Perhaps that’s why the Supreme Court did not address whether Mr. Janus himself was entitled to the refund he sought, instead simply remanding for further proceedings. [...]

    Bermudez’s only claim regarding payment of fair-share fees that isn’t time-barred is his California UCL cause of action, but he isn’t entitled to relief on that theory either. “The UCL’s purpose is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.” Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939, 949 (2002). Local 521 did not participate as a business in the commercial market, nor was its policy of collecting fair-share fees a commercial activity. ...

    3. The plaintiffs’ claims for a refund of their membership dues fail for the reasons stated in Crockett v. NEA-Alaska, No. 3:18-CV-00179 JWS, 2019 WL 1212082, at *7 (D. Alaska Mar. 14, 2019). This includes the plaintiffs’ state law claims, which fail because the dues were not wrongfully collected – the decision to pay dues was not coerced and payment was a valid contractual term. Cf. id.

    4. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied as to Valdez’s termination restrictions claim, because the parties did not adequately address this issue in their papers. Denial is without prejudice to either side filing an appropriate motion on this claim at a later date. .[6]

    		”
    —Judge Chhabria

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

    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

    Trial court


    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 "PacerMonitor", “Bermudez v. Service Employees International Union, Local 521 et al,” accessed May 3, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "PacerMonitor", “Bermudez v. Service Employees International Union, Local 521 et al,” accessed May 3, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 "PacerMonitor", “Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521: Amended Plaintiff’s Class-Action Complaint,” September 10, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 "PacerMonitor", “Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521: Order,” April 16, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 PacerMonitor, "Order granting as modified (1) final approval of class action settlement and (2) plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs and service awards," May 22, 2020
    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=Bermudez_v._SEIU_Local_521&oldid=9203436"