Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey

Doughty v. State Employees' Association of New Hampshire, SEIU Local 1984

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Doughty v. State Employees' Association of New Hampshire, SEIU Local 1984
Case number: 20-1534
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: January 14, 2019
District court decision:
May 30, 2019
Appeals court decision:
Nov. 30, 2020
Supreme Court decision:
June 14, 2021
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME.
Appeals court outcome
District court ruling affirmed.
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.

Doughty v. State Employees' Association of New Hampshire, SEIU Local 1984 was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on November 30, 2020. The First Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire's May 2019 dismissal of the suit. At issue was whether public-sector unions could be held liable for refunding agency fees paid prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which held that such fees are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court denied review of the case on June 14, 2021.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Patrick Doughty and Randy Severance, New Hampshire state workers. The defendant was the State Employee's Association of New Hampshire (SEA).
  • 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 outcome: This lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, a decision affirmed by the First Circuit. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Patrick Doughty and Randy Severance, New Hampshire state workers. Attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation represented the plaintiffs. The defendant was the State Employee's Association of New Hampshire (SEA). Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:

    • January 14, 2019: Doughty and Severance filed a class-action lawsuit against SEA in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Doughty and Severance alleged that SEA had violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights "not to associate with or financially support a labor organization and its affiliates as a condition of employment, without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First Amendment rights."[1] They asked that the court order SEA to refund all agency fees that they, and other non-member employees, had paid before Janus.
    • June 6, 2019: A motion hearing was held before the district court. Barbadoro issued an oral judgment dismissing the lawsuit.
    • June 21, 2019: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
    • November 30, 2020: The First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.
    • April 29, 2021: The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • June 14, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On May 30, 2019, Judge Paul Barbadoro delivered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. Barbadoro stated the following during the motion hearing:[2]

    “

    First Circuit precedent does allow me to grant a motion to dismiss in certain circumstances based on the availability of an affirmative defense. As I've explained, I believe for the reasons set forth by the court in Babb and the other courts that have reached a similar conclusion that a good faith defense is available to the plaintiffs here and I agree -- I agree with those courts that it is appropriate to recognize that defense and apply it here in response to the complaint that you have brought. Doing that, and using the 12(b)(6) standard, I have concluded that even construing the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to you that you have not stated a plausible claim for relief in light of the affirmative defense that I find is available to the plaintiff.[3]

    		”

    Barbadoro was appointed by President George H.W. Bush (R).

    Appellate court decision

    On November 30, 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. Judge David Barron, a Barack Obama (D) appointee, wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “ [A]lthough Doughty and Severance assert that their claim for damages seeks to vindicate their First Amendment right against compelled speech and association and that this right provides protection from harm that the common law itself did not, they ignore the unusual nature of their attempt to secure relief for the violation of that constitutional right. They thus develop no argument -- nor does any occur to us -- why close attention to the values and purposes of the First Amendment right against compelled speech and association supports the conclusion that the Congress that enacted § 1983 must have meant to create a claim for damages for its retroactive violation when the violation results in payments made pursuant to a lawful-when-invoked, state-backed process.[3] ”

    Judges Jeffrey R. Howard and O. Rogeriee Thompson, George W. Bush (R) and Obama appointees, respectively, joined Barron's opinion.[4]

    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

    Appeals court

    Supreme Court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ CourtListener, "Complaint – Class Action," January 14, 2019
    2. ↑ U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, "Transcript of Motion Hearing before the Honorable Paul J. Barbadoro," June 6, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, "Doughty v. State Employees' Association of New Hampshire: Opinion," November 30, 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=Doughty_v._State_Employees%27_Association_of_New_Hampshire,_SEIU,_Local_1984&oldid=9203513"