Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
Docket number: 14-915
Court: United States Supreme Court
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

In a case that labor unions and those in the right-to-work movement watched closely, the court addressed the constitutionality of requiring public employees to pay agency shop fees to public-sector unions in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Agency shop fees are dues paid to compensate a labor union for any collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment purposes conducted on behalf of the employees; the fees are equal to the amount of union dues. A group of California teachers argued that these fees were a violation of their First Amendment right.

On March 29, 2016, the justices delivered a 4-4 per curiam decision, and the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was upheld; however, it set no precedent. The California law requiring teachers to pay union dues remained in place after the court issued their decision, a big win for California's labor unions.

New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak called the decision, "the starkest illustration yet of how the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month has blocked the power of the court’s four remaining conservatives to move the law to the right." He wrote, "When the case was argued in January, the court’s conservative majority seemed ready to say that forcing public workers to support unions they had declined to join violates the First Amendment. Justice Scalia’s questions were consistently hostile to the unions. His death changed the balance of power in this case, and most likely in many others. The clout of the court’s four-member liberal wing has increased significantly."

On April 8, 2016, the teachers challenging the agency shop fees petitioned the court to rehear the case after a ninth justice is confirmed to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat. The court rejected their request on June 28, 2016.

Questions presented: "Whether Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977), should be overruled and public-sector 'agency shop' arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment." "Whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech."

Case background

Labor unions are required to represent all public employees, whether an employee is a member of the union or not. In Abood v. Detroit Education Association, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not a violation of an employee's First Amendment rights to be required to pay an "agency shop" fee. According to the United States Department of Labor, an "agency shop" is "A union security clause whereby all members of a bargaining unit must pay a service fee, the equivalent of dues, whether or not they are union members." The dues compensate a labor union for any collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment purposes conducted on behalf of the employees. Teachers in California who opt out of the union are not required to pay the union for engaging in political activity, but they are required to pay a fee for collective bargaining done on their behalf.

Education policy in the U.S.

Public education in the U.S.

School choice in the U.S.

Charter schools in the U.S.

Higher education in the U.S.

Glossary of education terms

Education statistics

The petitioners: the teachers

A group of 10 California teachers and the Christian Educators Association International, "a nonprofit religious organization that is the only professional association specifically serving Christians working in public schools," petitioned the court to review their case against the California Teachers Association. They argued that collective bargaining was a form of political speech because the union is able to engage in negotiations about the following issues: "'[t]erms and conditions of employment' that go to the heart of education policy, including 'wages,' 'hours,' 'health and welfare benefits,' 'leave,' 'transfer and reassignment policies,' 'class size,' and procedures for evaluating employees and processing grievances." Discussing collective bargaining, the brief stated, "In this era of broken municipal budgets and a national crisis in public education, it is difficult to imagine more politically charged issues than how much money local governments should devote to public employees, or what policies public schools should adopt to best educate children." For these reasons, the petitioners asked the court to overturn Abood v. Detroit Education Association and rule agency shop fees unconstitutional.

In what SCOTUSblog's Denniston called "a fallback position, in case there turns out not to be a majority to cast aside the Abood precedent altogether," the petitioners also asked the court to rule that having to opt out of paying for the union's political activity each year, rather than opting in, is a First Amendment violation. They argued that the assumption that an individual supports all of the activities of the union unless the individual opts out violates the First Amendment. The teachers wanted to change the procedure so that an individual could opt out once instead of having to opt out each year.

The respondents: the California Teachers Association

The California Teachers Association and California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, submitted briefs in support of agency shop fees and argued that Abood v. Detroit Education Association, should be reaffirmed "because it correctly respects public employers' prerogative to manage their workforces to ensure the efficient provision of public services to their citizens."

The brief for the teachers association stated that agency shop fees "promote fairness and reduce discord among employees, resulting in a more productive workforce," and "strengthen the bargaining relationship by eliminating an incentive for unions to 'mak[e] excessive demands on the [employer] in negotiations' or to 'process[] unwarranted grievances' to 'demonstrate that they can 'get something' for their members.'" They also argued that requiring union and non-union members to pay agency shop fees prevented "financial instability of the duly-elected bargaining agent [that] may jeopardize meaningful collective bargaining."

Harris argued that, "Agency fees are one piece of an integrated structure adopted by the California Legislature to address practical employee-relations challenges faced by the State’s many local school district employers." Harris also argued that the system that the state of California adopted provides union negotiators with the financial resources that they need to collectively bargain on behalf of the teachers. In addition, the fees are spread evenly among the teachers that the union represents, rather than placing the burden on a few. Harris concluded that "The rule adopted in Abood strikes a proper balance between the State’s interests in managing public workplaces and the limited First Amendment burden imposed by mandatory fees."

Argument

Oral argument: The court heard oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association on January 11, 2016.

• Transcript of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

• Audio of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Decision

On March 29, 2016, the justices delivered a 4-4 per curiam decision, and the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was upheld. The California law requiring teachers to pay union dues remained in place after the court released their decision, but it did not set a nationwide precedent. Because the court delivered a per curiam decision, it is unclear how the justices sided on the case.

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, said that she was pleased with the ruling, adding, “We know the wealthy extremists who pushed this case want to limit the ability for workers to have a voice, curb voting rights and restrict opportunities for women and immigrants."

Terence J. Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, the group that brought the suit, expressed his displeasure with the 4-4 split, saying, “With the death of Justice Scalia, this outcome was not unexpected. We believe this case is too significant to let a split decision stand. Either compulsory dues are an acceptable exception to the First Amendment or they are not. A full court needs to decide this question, and we expect this case will be reheard when a new justice is confirmed.”

On April 8, 2016, the teachers challenging the agency shop fees petitioned the court to rehear the case after a ninth justice is confirmed to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat. The petition stated, "The Questions Presented in this case are too important to leave unsettled with an affirmance by an equally divided Court, and they are guaranteed to recur in the absence of a definitive ruling from this Court. Petitioners thus respectfully request that the Court rehear this case after it obtains a full complement of Justices capable of reaching resolution by a five-Justice majority." The court rejected their request without explanation on June 28, 2016.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court
• Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
• Supreme Court cases, October term 2015
• California Teachers Association

External links

• Transcript of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

• Audio of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

• Decision: United States Supreme Court, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association