It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!

Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles
Case number: 21-1395
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: November 9, 2018
District court decision:
Feb. 10, 2020
Appeals court decision:
Jan. 27, 2022
Supreme Court decision:
June 6, 2022
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period, regardless of membership status.
Appeals court outcome
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.

Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 27, 2022. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's February 2020 dismissal of the case. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on April 27, 2022, which was denied on June 6, 2022.[1][2][3][4][5]

The plaintiff initially filed a claim challenging the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status.[6]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Thomas Few. The defendants were United Teachers Los Angeles, the attorney general of California, and the superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period, regardless of membership status?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Josephine Staton presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Judges Barry Silverman, Richard Clifton, and Andrew Hurwitz—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Central District of California's dismissal of the case. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Thomas Few. He was represented by attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center. The defendants were United Teachers Los Angeles, the attorney general of California, and the superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, represented by attorneys from the California Department of Justice, Altshuler Berzon LLP, and Littler Mendelson PC.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][6][3][4][5]

    • November 9, 2018: The plaintiff in Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles first filed his lawsuit on November 9, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff initially filed a claim that challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status. He requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, compensatory damages in the amount of all union fees collected since employment or in the amount deducted since June 2, 2018, or after June 27, 2018, costs, and attorney’s fees. The defendants answered with motions to dismiss the claim. The union noted that it had previously refunded all dues deductions with interest after June 4, 2018, when Few had initially requested to resign.
    • December 28, 2018: The plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The defendants responded with motions to dismiss.
    • March 29, 2019: A hearing was held regarding UTLA's motion to dismiss count two of the first amended complaint.
    • February 10, 2020: The district court issued a ruling in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.
    • March 30, 2020: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • January 27, 2022: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.
    • April 27, 2022: The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • June 6, 2022: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On February 10, 2020, Judge Josephine Staton issued an order in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.[3] Staton wrote the following in the court's opinion:[3]

    “

    The Court also concludes that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim for dues already deducted pursuant to the agreement fails as a matter of law. Essentially, Plaintiff argues that his voluntary decision to join UTLA should now be viewed as involuntary because when he signed his union application and dues authorizations, he did not know Janus would be decided shortly thereafter. Janus’s holding that mandatory non-member agency fees are unconstitutional means that whereas employees like Few previously were faced with electing to become either (1) a dues-paying union member or (2) an agency-fees paying non-member, they now have a third option – they can be non-members who pay nothing to the union. But that does not change the reality of Few’s decision to join UTLA and the legality of the pre-Janus dues deducted thereunder.

    Besides, even assuming that such deductions would now be illegal under Janus, the Ninth Circuit recently held that a good faith defense bars recovery of pre-Janus dues payments:

    Because the Union’s action was sanctioned not only by state law, but also by directly on-point Supreme Court precedent [(Abood)], we hold that the good faith defense shields the Union from retrospective monetary liability as a matter of law. In so ruling, we join a growing consensus of courts across the nation.

    Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096, 1104 (9th Cir. 2019). In light of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Danielson, the Court concludes that the good faith defense is operative here.[7]

    		”

    Staton was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On January 27, 2022, a three-judge panel—Judges Barry Silverman, Richard Clifton, and Andrew Hurwitz—affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. The court's memorandum said:[8]

    “

    Summary judgment on Few’s claim seeking retrospective monetary relief from deduction of union membership dues was proper because Few failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he did not affirmatively and voluntarily consent to the deduction of union dues. See Belgauv. Inslee ... (concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31 ... did not extend a First Amendment right to avoid paying union dues that were agreed upon under validly entered membership agreements). The parties agree that this court’s intervening decision in Belgau v. Inslee ... controls the outcome of this claim.

    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Few’s claim seeking prospective relief from the union because such claim is moot. See Bain v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n ... (plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief were moot when they resigned their union membership and presented no reasonable likelihood that they would rejoin the union in the future).

    The district court properly dismissed Few’s claim challenging California’s exclusive bargaining representation arrangement because Few failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Mentele v. Inslee ... (holding that exclusive bargaining arrangement is constitutionally permissible); Serra v. Lappin ... (setting forth standard of review).[7]

    		”

    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

    Supreme Court

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, “Thomas Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles et al,” accessed June 6, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Thomas Few v. UTLA, et al,” accessed June 6, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 “Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles: Civil Minutes - General,” February 10, 2020 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 21-1395," accessed June 6, 2022
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order list: 596 U.S.," June 6, 2022
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 PacerMonitor, "Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles: Complaint Seeking Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Damages for Deprivation of First Amendment Rights,” November 9, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "complaint" defined multiple times with different content
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Justia, "Memorandum," January 27, 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=Few_v._United_Teachers_Los_Angeles&oldid=9203499"