Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
Case number: 22-216
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Nov. 13, 2018
District court decision:
July 9, 2019
Appeals court decision:
April 28, 2022
Supreme Court decision:
Nov. 7, 2022
District court outcome
Dismissed with prejudice.
Appeals court outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari denied.

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.

Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 28, 2022. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California's July 2019 dismissal of the case. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on November 7, 2022.[1][2][3][4]

Following the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, Cooley filed a class-action lawsuit in district court seeking, in part, a refund for agency fees non-members paid to the union before Janus and a refund of union dues deducted after Janus from union members who wished to resign from the union outside of the contractual 30-day window. Among other requests, Cooley asked the court to "[declare] that the Constitution requires the CSLEA to promptly accept the resignation any public employee who informs the union that he no longer wishes to remain a member," "[declare] that the CSLEA must stop taking money from the paychecks of employees who have announced their resignations from union membership or demanded a halt to payroll deductions," and "[declare] that a public employee’s pre-Janus consent to the payment of union dues is not legally valid consent to the payment of full union dues in a post-Janus, right-to-work environment."[5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Terry C. Cooley, a former California Statewide Law Enforcement Association member. The defendants were the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association and the California Association of Law Enforcement Employees.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, if a public employee wants to resign from a union and stop paying dues, can a public-sector union not accept the resignation and continue deducting dues if there is a pre-existing agreement restricting union resignation to a specific window of time?
  • The presiding judges: Judge John Mendez presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez, U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, and Chief U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota John Tunheim—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Terry C. Cooley, a former California Statewide Law Enforcement Association member. Attorneys from Mitchell Law PLLC, Franklin Scott Conway LLP, and Benbrook Law Group, PC represented Cooley. The defendants were the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association and the California Association of Law Enforcement Employees. Attorneys from Downey Brand LLP represented the defendants.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4]

    • November 13, 2018: The plaintiff filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
    • January 3, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
    • January 25, 2019: The district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
    • February 22, 2019: The plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
    • July 9, 2019: Judge John Mendez isused an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.
    • July 31, 2019: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • April 28, 2022: The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • May 12, 2022: The plaintiff filed a petition for a rehearing en banc.
    • June 8, 2022: The petition for a rehearing en banc was denied.
    • September 6, 2022: The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • November 7, 2022: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On July 9, 2019, Judge John Mendez issued an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Mendez wrote:[6]

    “

    Mr. Cooley had to pay dues as long as he remained a member; he could only withdraw from membership within a certain time frame; and, as a matter of logic and consistent with the structure of this arrangement, if he did not withdraw during that time frame his membership would automatically continue. ... This was valid assent, and an intervening change in law does not taint that consent or invalidate his contractual agreement. ...

    Mr. Cooley asserts an entitlement to a refund of the compelled portion of his membership dues – equivalent to the Union’s charged fair-share service fee (or agency fee) – paid to the Union before Janus was decided. ... Mr. Cooley reasons that, even though he voluntarily agreed to join the Union and pay full membership dues, in the pre-Janus world he would have, at minimum, been compelled to pay the Union an agency fee. Mr. Cooley contends that Janus invalidated such agency fees and, because Janus applies retroactively, a refund is warranted. This Court finds that the Union owes Mr. Cooley no such refund.

    First, Mr. Cooley made an affirmative choice to become a member of the Union, obligating him to pay full membership dues. ...

    Second, and independently, Mr. Cooley’s argument relies on Janus applying retroactively in a manner this Court does not sanction. ...

    ...

    Mr. Cooley contends that a public employer must immediately halt union-related payroll deductions upon learning that an employee has withdrawn his or her 'affirmative consent' to those assessments. ... Mr. Cooley’s argument fails for two reasons. First, this argument hinges on a finding that Mr. Cooley has a First Amendment right to immediately resign union membership and cease paying dues. But, as discussed above, Janus did not announce such a right and no such right exist here. ... Second, the argument fails for the independent reason that the Union’s refusal to immediately accept Mr. Cooley’s resignation and cease fee deductions does not constitute state action.[7]

    		”

    President George W. Bush (R) appointed Mendez to the court.

    Appellate court decision

    On April 28, 2022, a three-judge panel—Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez, U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, and Chief U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota John Tunheim—affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. The panel's decision said:[8]

    “

    1. The district court properly found that Cooley’s membership application met the essential elements of a contract. ...

    2. The district court properly found Cooley was bound to maintain union membership until June 1, 2019 under the maintenance of membership provision in the CBA. ...

    3. The district court properly concluded that Cooley does not have a First Amendment right to resign from his union. Although the freedom of association contained within the First Amendment includes the freedom against compelled associations, none of the cases cited to the district court or to this Court establish that there is a constitutional right to end voluntary contractual associations. ...

    4. The district court did not err in dismissing Cooley’s § 1983 claims against CSLEA. Cooley failed to show that he was deprived of a constitutional right as a result of state action and that CSLEA was fairly attributed as a state actor. ...

    5. The district court properly dismissed Cooley’s claim for a refund of the union dues he paid before the decision in Janus[.] [7]

    		”

    President Bill Clinton (D) nominated Paez to the Ninth Circuit, and President Barack Obama (D) nominated Nguyen. Clinton nominated Tunheim to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

    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.[9]

    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.[9]

    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."[9]

    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

    Appeals court

    Supreme Court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, “Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association et al,” accessed May 8, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, “Terry Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enfor, et al,” accessed May 8, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 22-216," accessed September 14, 2022
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List: 598 U.S.," November 7, 2022
    5. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Plaintiff’s First Amended Class-Action Complaint," February 22, 2019
    6. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association: Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss," July 9, 2019
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Memorandum," April 28, 2022
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 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=Cooley_v._California_Statewide_Law_Enforcement_Association&oldid=9203521"