Danielson v. Inslee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Danielson v. Inslee
Case number: 19-1130
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: March 15, 2018
District court decision:
Nov. 28, 2018
Appeals court decision:
Dec. 26, 2019
Supreme Court decision:
Jan. 25, 2021
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME.
Appeals court outcome
Affirmed district court's decision.
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.

Danielson v. Inslee was decided by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on December 26, 2019. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which had held that public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. In Janus, the high court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support unions' non-political activities. The Supreme Court denied review of the case on January 25, 2021.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Dale Danielson, Benjamin Rast, and Tamara Roberson, all Washington state employees. The defendants were Gov. Jay Inslee (D), David Schumacher, Director of Washington State Office of Financial Management, and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 28.
  • 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 Robert Bryan presided over the case in the district court. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit comprised Judges Ronald Gould, Jacqueline Nguyen, and Gregory Presnell.
  • The outcome: The appellate panel ruled that the union had acted in good faith and in accordance with the law when it collected agency fees and, therefore, could not be held liable for refunding these fees. The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Dale Danielson, Benjamin Rast, and Tamara Roberson, all Washington state employees. They were represented by attorneys from the Freedom Foundation. The defendants were Gov. Jay Inslee (D), David Schumacher, Director of Washington State Office of Financial Management, and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 28. AFSCME Council 28 was represented by attorneys from the following firms: Younglove & Coker PLLC and Altshuler Berzon LLP.[1] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[3][4]

    • March 15, 2018: The plaintiffs in Danielson v. Inslee first filed their class-action lawsuit on March 15, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In that filing, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of compulsory fee collection and sought refunds of "all agency fees that were unlawfully collected from Plaintiffs and their fellow class members."
    • July 19, 2018: The state defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
    • August 16, 2018: Judge Robert Bryan granted the state defendants' motion to dismiss.
    • September 20, 2018: AFSCME Council 28 filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment.
    • November 28, 2018: Bryan issued a judgment in favor of AFSCME Council 28 and granted their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
    • December 27, 2018: The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • November 6, 2019: Arguments took place in the appellate court.
    • December 26, 2019: The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision.
    • March 12, 2020: The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, filing their petition for writ of certiorari.
    • January 25, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    Decisions

    U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

    On August 16, 2018, Judge Robert Bryan wrote:[5]

    “

    In conclusion, because the State Defendants have met their burden to show that the challenged agency fees cannot reasonably be expected to recur, Plaintiffs’ claims are moot. The State Defendants’ motion should be granted. Because the Court has not reached the merits, and in acknowledgment that, although unlikely, the State could theoretically reverse course on its agency policy, the defendants should be dismissed without prejudice.[6]

    		”

    Bryan was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan (R).

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    On December 26, 2019, the three-judge panel, comprising Judges Ronald Gould, Jacqueline Nguyen, and Gregory Presnell, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. Nguyen wrote the following in the court's opinion:[1]

    “

    Throughout the country, public sector employees brought claims for monetary relief against the unions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Many unions asserted a good faith defense in response. Joining a growing consensus, the district court here ruled in favor of the union. We affirm and hold that private 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.

    [...]

    We hold that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for monetary relief against the Union. In so ruling, we join the Seventh Circuit, the only other circuit to have addressed the question before us. ... We agree with our sister circuit that a union defendant can invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it collected pre-Janus, where its conduct was directly authorized under both state law and decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Union was not required to forecast changing winds at the Supreme Court and anticipatorily presume the overturning of Abood. Instead, we permit private parties to rely on judicial pronouncements of what the law is, without exposing themselves to potential liability for doing so.[6]

    		”
    —Judge Jacqueline Nguyen

    Nguyen was appointed to the court by President Barack Obama (D). Gould and Presnell were 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.[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

    Supreme Court

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Danielson v. Inslee: Opinion," December 26, 2019 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "danielsondecision" defined multiple times with different content
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List: 592 U.S.," January 25, 2021
    3. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Danielson et al. v. Inslee et al.," accessed February 26, 2020
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Danielson v. Inslee," accessed April 10, 2020
    5. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Order Granting the State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or For Summary Judgment," August 16, 2018
    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=Danielson_v._Inslee&oldid=9203549"