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

Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association
Case number: 21-597
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
District court decision:
Jan. 31, 2020
Appeals court decision:
July 29, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Dec. 6, 2021
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
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
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.

Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 29, 2021. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii's January 2020 dismissal of the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on December 6, 2021. In light of the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiff initially filed a claim that challenged the constitutionality of prior union membership and fee deduction agreements allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time regardless of membership status. The plaintiff requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, compensatory damages in the amount of all union fees collected since her initial employment in 1995 or since the Janus decision, costs, and attorney’s fees.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Patricia Grossman, a University of Hawaii employee. The defendants were the Hawaii Government Employees Association/AFSCME Local 152, President of the University of Hawaii, and the Hawaii Attorney General.
  • 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 Derrick Kahala Watson presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge appellate panel included Ninth Circuit Judges Mary Schroeder, Barry Silverman, and Mary Murguia.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii's dismissal of the lawsuit. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Patricia Grossman, a University of Hawaii employee. She was represented by counsel from the Liberty Justice Center and Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert. The defendants were the Hawaii Government Employees Association/AFSCME Local 152, President of the University of Hawaii David Lassner, and Hawaii Attorney General Clare E. Connors. The union was represented by counsel from Altshuler Berzon LLP. Hawaii Attorney General Connors was represented by counsel from the office of the Hawaii Attorney General and David Lassner by counsel from the University of Hawaii.[1][2]

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5][6][6][7]

    • December 20, 2018: The plaintiffs in Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association first filed their lawsuit on December 20, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. In light of Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiff initially filed a claim that challenged the constitutionality of prior union membership and fee deduction agreements allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time regardless of membership status. The membership agreement allowed for withdrawal of membership during a pre-assigned 30-day window at set intervals. The plaintiff requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, compensatory damages in the amount of all union fees collected since her initial employment in 1995, or, since the Janus decision, costs, and attorney’s fees.
    • February 11, 2019: The union defendant filed a motion to dismiss count two of the plaintiff’s complaint due to failure to state a claim.
    • May 21, 2019: The court granted the union defendant’s motion to dismiss count two of the plaintiff’s complaint, which stated the state law granting the union exclusive representation infringed on her First Amendment rights.
    • January 31, 2020: The court issued an order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and terminating the lawsuit.
    • March 3, 2020: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • July 29, 2021: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • October 21, 2021: The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • December 6, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.


    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On January 31, 2020, Judge Derrick Kahala Watson granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. Watson wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “

    The good faith defense applies to the facts of this case. Under Abood, a union could collect “agency” or “fair-share” fees from public-sector employees who were not union members, without their consent, and these employees had no right to object under the First Amendment. See 431 U.S. at 225–32. Abood was not overruled until decades later, on June 27, 2018, when the Supreme Court decided Janus, holding that “States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees . . . [u]nless employees clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them[.]” Janus, 138 S. Ct. at 2486. Although the rule in Janus applies retroactively, as Grossman contends, Dkt. No. 60-1 at 8; cf. Danielson, 945 F.3d at 1099, when Grossman signed her HGEA membership application in 1995, HGEA was entitled to, and did, rely on Abood as then-binding Supreme Court precedent. Nothing in Abood required HGEA (or her employer) to inform Grossman that she could elect to not pay any money to HGEA. Indeed, Grossman does not contend that HGEA violated any legal principle announced in Abood or its progeny.8 Because a private party is not expected to anticipate changes in constitutional law, the good faith defense shields HGEA, as a matter of law, from pre-Janus monetary liability. [8]

    		”
    —Judge Watson

    Watson was nominated by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On July 29, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Judges Mary Schroeder, Barry Silverman, and Mary Murguia—affirmed the district court's decision:[5]

    “

    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grossman’s claim seeking prospective relief because such claim is moot. ...

    The district court properly dismissed Grossman’s First Amendment claim challenging the exclusive bargaining representation arrangement for Hawaii public employees because Grossman failed to allege a plausible claim. ...

    The parties agree that this court’s intervening decision in Belgau v. Inslee ... controls the outcome of Grossman’s First Amendment claim arising from the collection of union dues under her membership agreement. We affirm the district court’s summary judgment because Grossman affirmatively and voluntarily consented to the deduction of union dues. See Belgau ... (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 union membership agreements).[8]

    		”

    President Jimmy Carter (D) nominated Schroeder to the court, President Bill Clinton (D) nominated Silverman, and President Barack Obama (D) nominated Murguia.

    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

    Trial court

    Appeals court

    Supreme Court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, “Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association/AFSCME Local 152,” accessed June 8, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Patricia Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees' A, et al,” accessed June 8, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, “Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association: Complaint Seeking Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Damages for Deprivation of First Amendment Rights,” December 20, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 PacerMonitor, “Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association: Order (1) Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (2) Granting Defendants’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment; and (3) Dismissing This Action,” January 31, 2020 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 PacerMonitor, "Memorandum," July 29, 2021
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 21-597," accessed December 3, 2021
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order list: 595 U.S.," December 6, 2021
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    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=Grossman_v._Hawaii_Government_Employees_Association&oldid=9203526"