Carey v. Inslee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Carey v. Inslee
Case number: 19-35290
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: March 15, 2018
District court decision:
March 14, 2019
Appeals court decision:
April 27, 2021
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.

Carey v. Inslee was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 27, 2021. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington's March 2019 dismissal of the suit. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint before 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.[1][2][3][4][5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Justin Carey, Jobeth Deibel, David Gaston, Roger Kinney, and Keith Sanborn. The defendant was the Washington Education 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 Ronald Leighton presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge appellate panel—Chief Judge Sidney Thomas and Judges Atsushi Wallace Tashima and Barry Silverman—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Western District of Washington's dismissal of the suit.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Justin Carey, Jobeth Deibel, David Gaston, Roger Kinney, and Keith Sanborn, all public school employees. They were represented by attorneys from the Freedom Foundation and Mitchell Law PLLC. The defendant was the Washington Education Association. The union was represented by counsel from Altshuler Berzon LLP. Governor Jay Inslee (D) and Washington State Office of Financial Management Director David Schumacher were named as defendants, but were removed from the lawsuit on August 21, 2018. Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5]

    • March 15, 2018: The plaintiffs first filed their lawsuit on March 15, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
    • August 21, 2018: The court granted the state defendants’ motion to dismiss, effectively removing Governor Jay Inslee (D) and Washington State Office of Financial Management Director David Schumacher from the lawsuit.
    • March 6, 2019: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
    • March 11, 2019: The district court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case was terminated on March 14, 2019.
    • April 11, 2019: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • September 5, 2019: The plaintiffs filed the opening brief for the appeal.
    • November 6, 2019: The defendant filed an answering brief.
    • April 27, 2021: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On March 11, 2019, Judge Ronald Leighton issued an order in favor of the defendants, granting their motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court dismissed claims of unconstitutionality and declaratory relief as moot in light of Janus v. AFSCME and claims for monetary relief because of the defendants’ good faith defense.[4] Judge Leighton wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    All of the evidence shows that WEA consciously relied on a then-valid Washington statute. WEA had a practice of tracking which employees were nonunion members or religious objectors and WEA immediately shifted its procedures to comply with Janus after the decision was handed down. See Dkt. #34, at 2, 4; id. at Ex. A. This evidences WEA’s knowledge of the relevant constitutional requirements. In any case, Plaintiffs have presented no facts or allegations demonstrating that WEA acted with complete legal ignorance of Abood’s holding, and no amount of discovery will allow Plaintiffs to prove something that both the evidence and common sense contradict. WEA collected agency fees from nonunion members because it correctly believed that doing so was lawful at the time. It therefore may assert the good faith defense. [6]

    		”
    —Judge Leighton

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

    Appellate court decision

    On April 27, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Chief Judge Sidney Thomas and Judges Atsushi Wallace Tashima and Barry Silverman—affirmed the district court's decision:[5]

    “

    The district court properly granted summary judgment 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 ... [Danielson v. Inslee] ... ("[P]rivate parties may invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where they acted in direct reliance on then-binding Supreme Court precedent and presumptively-valid state law"). [6]

    		”

    Thomas, Tashima, and Silverman were appointed to the court 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.[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, "Carey et al v. Inslee et al," accessed May 6, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Justin Carey, et al v. Washington Education Assoc, et al," accessed May 6, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Carey v. Inslee: Plaintiffs’ Class-Action Complaint," March 15, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 PacerMonitor, "Carey v. Inslee: Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment," March 11, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 PacerMonitor, "Memorandum," filed April 27, 2021
    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=Carey_v._Inslee&oldid=9203448"