Fisk v. Inslee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fisk v. Inslee
Case number: 0:17-cv-35957
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: October 20, 2016
October 26, 2017
December 17, 2018
District court outcome
Public-sector unions may continue collection of 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 district court’s decision

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.

Fisk v. Inslee was decided by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on December 17, 2018. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the decision of a district court, which had held that it is constitutional for public-sector unions to continue collection of 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.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Becky Fisk, Linda Bowman, Nathaniel Israel, and Susan Nott. The defendants were Governor Jay Inslee (D), Cheryl Strange, and the Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775 NW.
  • The issue: Is it constitutional for public-sector unions to continue collection of 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 judge(s): A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was convened to consider the case. The panel comprised Judges Susan Graber, Margaret Mckeown, and Morgan Christen. Graber and Mckeown were appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton (D). Christen was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).
  • The outcome: The appellate panel ruled that public-sector unions may continue collection of union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Becky Fisk, Linda Bowman, Nathaniel Israel, and Susan Nott. Fisk was not a party to the appeal. They were represented by counsel from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc and the Freedom Foundation. The defendants were Governor Jay Inslee (D), Cheryl Strange, and the Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775 NW. Inslee and Strange were represented by counsel from the Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia). SEIU was represented by counsel from Altshuler Berzon LLP and Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4]

    • October 20, 2016: The plaintiffs in Fisk v. Inslee first filed their lawsuit on October 20, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The lawsuit corresponded to case number 3:16-cv-05889 and the name Fisk et al v. Inslee et al. The plaintiffs’ claim challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status, if membership was withdrawn outside of a specific window of time.
    • June 1, 2017: The plaintiffs and defendants all filed motions for summary judgment on the case.
    • August 29, 2017: A district court hearing was held regarding the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ motions for summary judgment, at which oral arguments were heard.
    • October 16, 2017: An order was issued granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
    • October 26, 2017: The district court terminated the case.
    • November 28, 2017: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lawsuit corresponded to the case number 0:17-cv-35957 and the name Linda Bowman, et al v. Jay Inslee, et al.
    • December 3, 2018: A hearing was held before a three-judge panel to consider the appeals case.
    • December 17, 2018: The appellate court upheld the district court decision, ruling in favor of the defendants.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    District court decision

    On October 26, 2017, Judge Ronald Leighton ruled in favor of the defendant, granting their motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.[3] Judge Leighton wrote the following in the court's opinion:[3]

    “

    The freedom to contract is rooted in the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It is the bedrock upon which the economic engine provides the goods and services necessary for a thriving society. A worker has every right to voluntarily associate with a union in order to promote better working conditions and wages. Correspondingly, a worker can refuse to associate with or join a union. That is her prerogative. But, once she joins voluntarily, in writing, she has the obligation to perform the terms of her agreement. The freedom of speech and the freedom of association do not trump the obligations and promises voluntarily and knowingly assumed. The other party to that contract has every reason to depend on those promises for the purpose of planning and budgeting resources. The Constitution says nothing affirmative about reneging legal and lawful responsibilities freely undertaken. [5]

    		”
    —Judge Leighton

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

    Appellate court decision

    On December 17, 2018, the three-judge panel, comprising Susan Graber, Margaret Mckeown, and Morgan Christen unanimously upheld the district court decision.[4] The following was written in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    Because Appellants’ complaint impliedly concedes that they initially agreed to pay union dues and only objects to later attempts to escape the terms of that membership card agreement, we need not inquire into whether Appellants’ initial decision to enter into the agreement constituted an adequate waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Washington state and SEIU. [5]

    		”
    —Appellate Court Panel

    Graber and Mckeown were appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton (D). Christen was appointed by President Barack Obama (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.[6]

    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.[6]

    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."[6]

    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

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, "Fisk et al v. Inslee et al," accessed June 2, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, "Linda Bowman, et al v. Jay Inslee, et al," accessed June 2, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 PacerMonitor, "Fisk v. Inslee: Order," October 16, 2017
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Justia US Law, "Linda Bowman, et al v. Jay Inslee, et al: Memorandum," December 17, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 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=Fisk_v._Inslee&oldid=9203570"