Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Boyle v. SEIU California

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Boyle v. SEIU California
Case number: 4:19-cv-00426
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Jan. 24, 2019
District court decision:
Feb. 10, 2021
District court outcome
Joint request for dismissal granted.

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.

Boyle v. SEIU California was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 10, 2021, after the parties reached a settlement.[1] The case was consolidated with the lawsuit Aliser v. SEIU California. The plaintiffs filed a complaint following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision 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" and a refund of all agency fees paid to the union. In Janus, the Supreme Court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support unions' non-political activities.[2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The lead plaintiff was Teresa Boyle. The lead defendant was SEIU California.
  • 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. Chhabria was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).
  • The outcome: This lawsuit was dismissed after the parties reached a settlement.

    • Procedural history

    The lead plaintiff was Teresa Boyle, represented by attorneys from Talcott Franklin P.C., Mitchell Law, PLLC, and Benbrook Law Group. The lead defendant was SEIU California, represented by attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP. There were 69 parties named in this lawsuit. 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]

    • January 24, 2019: The plaintiffs in Boyle v. SEIU California first filed their lawsuit on January 24, 2019, in the US. 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 fee collection, as well as requests for an injunction prohibiting the union from collecting fees without "clear affirmative consent" and a refund of all agency fees paid to the union. The case was later consolidated with Aliser v. SEIU California.
    • March 6, 2019: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
    • December 31, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
    • January 16, 2020: The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
    • November 23-24, 2020: Settlement conferences were held.
    • February 10, 2021: Judge Vince Chhabria granted the parties' joint request for dismissal.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    This lawsuit was dismissed after the parties reached a settlement.[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.[5]

    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.[5]

    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."[5]

    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, "Order granting request for dismissal," February 10, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Court Listener, “Boyle et al v. SEIU California et al,” accessed July 3, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 PacerMonitor, “Aliser et al v. SEIU California et al,” accessed July 3, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Court Listener, “Boyle v. SEIU California: Plaintiffs’ Class-Action Complaint Jury Trial Demanded,” accessed July 3, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 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=Boyle_v._SEIU_California&oldid=9203437"