Bierman v. Dayton

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Bierman v. Dayton
Case number: 0:17-cv-01244
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: July 28, 2014
District court decision: January 3, 2017
Appeals court decision: August 14, 2018
District court outcome
State certification of an exclusive representative for individual providers does not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Appeals court outcome
Confirmed district court’s decision

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.

Bierman v. Dayton was decided by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on August 14, 2018. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the decision of a district court, which had held that state certification of an exclusive representative for individual providers was constitutional. The court ruled that Janus v. AFSCME did not apply as precedent because it did not explicitly overturn the Knight decision, but rather dealt with the constitutionality of agency fees, which were not at issue in this lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States on December 13, 2018, and that appeal was denied on May 13, 2019.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The lead plaintiff was Teresa Bierman. The defendants were the SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, former Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton (D), Josh Tilsen, and Emily Johnson Piper.
  • The issue: Does state certification of an exclusive representative for individual providers violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
  • The presiding judge(s): A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was convened to consider the case. The panel comprised Lavenski Smith, Diana Murphy, and Steven Colloton. Smith and Colloton were appointed by President George W. Bush (R). Murphy was appointed by President Bill Clinton (D).
  • The outcome: The appellate panel ruled that state certification of an exclusive representative for individual providers is constitutional. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States on December 13, 2018, and that appeal was denied on May 13, 2019.

    • Procedural history

    The lead plaintiff was Teresa Bierman, represented by counsel from the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation and Winthrop & Weinstine, PA. The defendants were SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, former Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton (D), Josh Tilsen, and Emily Johnson Piper. The union was represented by counsel from Altshuler Berzon LLP and Cummins & Cummins, Pllp. For a complete list of plaintiffs and defendants in this lawsuit click here.[1][2][3] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5][6]

    • July 28, 2014: The plaintiffs in Bierman v. Dayton first filed their lawsuit on July 28, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs were all in-home providers who provided care for a child with disabilities. They contended that the movement to establish a union as an exclusive representative (SEIU Healthcare Minnesota), certify that union through a majority vote in an election, and require financial support of the union would be First Amendment right violations.
    • July 30, 2014: The plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the union certification election and the state from certifying the union as an exclusive representative.
    • August 20, 2014: The district court denied the preliminary injunction as premature and unlikely to succeed on merits.
    • August 26, 2014: The certification election results were recorded and the SEIU was certified as the exclusive representative.
    • September 2, 2014: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, this time only with the claim that establishing a union as an exclusive representative for individual providers was unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment. They again requested a preliminary injunction, which was also denied.
    • October 30, 2014: The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal regarding the preliminary injunction before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The lawsuit was stayed pending results of the appeal.
    • April 12, 2016: The appeal was dismissed as moot by the appellate court because the election had already taken place and the union was certified.
    • June 30, 2016: The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of failure to state a claim.
    • January 3, 2017: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim.
    • February 2, 2017: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.
    • August 14, 2018: The appellate court upheld the district court decision.
    • December 13, 2018: The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
    • May 13, 2019: The appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On January 3, 2017, Judge Michael James Davis issued an order in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim.[4] Judge Davis wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    The fact that, because it has been certified, SEIU owes a fiduciary-like duty to Plaintiffs "fairly and equitably to represent all employees ..., union and non-union, within the relevant unit," Abood, 431 U.S. at 221, 97 S.Ct. 1782, does not infringe Plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs owe no corresponding duty to SEIU. Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that the imposition of a legal duty on an entity impermissibly burdens the rights of the beneficiaries of that duty. In any event, the duty of fair representation imposed on the union actually protects bargaining unit members' rights not to associate with the union. It bars the union from discriminating against them when bargaining and administering a collective bargaining agreement. See, e.g. , Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n, 500 U.S. 507, 556, 111 S.Ct. 1950, 114 L.Ed.2d 572 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

    Finally, the Court holds that Harris v. Quinn has no application in this case. ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2618, 189 L.Ed.2d 620 (2014). In Harris, the plaintiffs did not "challenge the authority of the SEIU–HII to serve as the exclusive representative of all the personal assistants in bargaining with the State. All they s[ought] is the right not to be forced to contribute to the union, with which they broadly disagree." 134 S.Ct. at 2640. The Supreme Court solely decided that it was a violation of the First Amendment for a state to require homecare providers to pay fair share or agency fees to a union. Id. at 2644. The Harris Court further made clear that a "union's status as exclusive bargaining agent and the right to collect an agency fee from non-members are not inextricably linked." Id. at 2640. Harris does not dictate a finding for Plaintiffs by this Court.

    The Court concludes that the State's certification of SEIU as the exclusive representative under the Act and PELRA does not infringe on Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. [7]

    		”
    —Judge Davis

    Judge Davis was appointed by President Bill Clinton (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On August 14, 2018, Judges Lavenski Smith, Diana Murphy and Steven Colloton upheld the district court decision.[5] Judge Colloton wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “

    Recent holdings in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), and Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014), do not supersede Knight. Under those decisions, a State cannot compel public employees and homecare providers, respectively, to pay fees to a union of which they are not members, but the providers here do not challenge a mandatory fee. Janus did characterize a State’s requirement that a union serve as an exclusive bargaining agent for its employees as “a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts,” 138 S. Ct. at 2478, but the decision never mentioned Knight, and the constitutionality of exclusive representation standing alone was not at issue. Of course, where a precedent like Knight has direct application in a case, we should follow it, even if a later decision arguably undermines some of its reasoning. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997). [7]

    		”
    —Judge Colloton

    Smith and Colloton were appointed by President George W. Bush (R). Murphy was appointed by President Bill Clinton (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.[8]

    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.[8]

    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."[8]

    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, “Bierman et al v. Dayton et al,” accessed June 15, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Teresa Bierman, et al v. Governor Mark Dayton, et al,” accessed June 15, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 PacerMonitor, “Teresa Bierman, et al v. Mark Dayton, et al,” accessed June 15, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Case Text, "Bierman v. Dayton: Opinion," January 3, 2017
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Court Listener, "Bierman v. Dayton: Opinion," August 14, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Supreme Court of the United States, “Teresa Bierman, et al., Petitioners v. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, et al.,” accessed June 15, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 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=Bierman_v._Dayton&oldid=9203435"