Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18
Case number: No. 20-1606
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Nov. 30, 2018
District court decision:
Jan. 22, 2020
Appeals court decision:
March 26, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Nov. 1, 2021
District court outcome
Union dues authorizations that restrict membership resignation to opt-out windows are enforceable, and exclusive representation does not violate the Constitution.
Appeals court outcome
The Tenth 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.

Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 was decided on March 26, 2021, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The plaintiff filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico alleging that his former union's policy of restricting membership resignation to certain opt-out windows, enforcing agreements signed before the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, violated the First Amendment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's January 2020 dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court denied review of the case on November 1, 2021.[1][2][3][4][5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Brett Hendrickson, a quality control specialist employed by the New Mexico Human Services Department. The defendants were the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 18 and New Mexico's governor and attorney general in their official capacities.
  • The issue: Did the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME invalidate union card contracts signed before Janus, including contracts restricting membership withdrawal to occur within yearly opt-out windows?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Robert Brack presided over the case in the district court. A three-judge appellate panel included Tenth Circuit Judges Scott Matheson, Carlos Lucero, and Carolyn McHugh.
  • The outcome: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of the defendants. The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Brett Hendrickson, a quality control specialist employed by the New Mexico Human Services Department.[6] He was represented by attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center.

    The defendants were AFSCME Council 18 and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) and Attorney General Hector Balderas (D) in their official capacities. AFSCME Council 18 was represented by Altshuler Berzon, LLP, and Lujan-Grisham and Balderas were represented by Park & Associates.

    Hendrickson filed his lawsuit on November 30, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. He alleged his request to withdraw union membership was refused for being outside of a two-week opt-out window, and he was charged union dues based on a union card signed before the Janus decision, which he argued violated his First Amendment rights. Additionally, Hendrickson argued that New Mexico state statutes regarding a union’s right to exclusive representation on matters of public policy were unconstitutional.

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

    • November 30, 2018: Hendrickson filed a complaint against the New Mexico Human Services Department and AFSCME Council 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
    • March 1, 2019: Defendant AFSCME Council 18 asked the district court to dismiss Count II of the complaint regarding exclusive representation.
    • March 15, 2019: Hendrickson filed an amended complaint, adding Michelle Lujan Grisham and Hector Baldera as defendants.
    • March 29, 2019: AFSCME Council 18 filed an answer to the amended complaint, arguing that they had since withdrawn Hendrickson’s union membership and stopped union fee payroll deduction, rendering his claim moot.
    • May 31, 2019: Hendrickson and defendant AFSCME Council 18 both filed motions for summary judgment. The State defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
    • January 22, 2020: The court dismissed the suit, granting the AFSCME Council 18’s motion for summary judgment and the State defendants’ motion to dismiss.
    • February 19, 2020: Hendrickson appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
    • March 26, 2021: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling and remanded the case to the lower court to be amended.
    • April 27, 2021: The district court issued an amended order and dismissed the suit.
    • May 14, 2021: Hendrickson appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • November 1, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico

    On January 22, 2020, Judge Robert Brack dismissed the lawsuit and granted the AFSCME Council 18’s motion for summary judgment. Brack wrote the following in the court's opinion:[8]

    “ Hendrickson fails to point to any decision that applied Janus to void a union membership contract under similar circumstances. On the contrary, each court that examined this issue has rejected the claim that Janus entitles union members to resign and stop paying dues on their own—rather than on the contract's—terms. … As part of the contract, he knowingly agreed that he could only revoke his dues deduction authorization during a two-week opt-out window. He does not allege that he was coerced, and the parties agree that he was not required by state law to join. He could have paid a lesser fair share fee as a nonmember, but instead he chose to join the Union.[9] ”

    Brack was appointed to the court in 2003 by President George W. Bush (R).

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

    On March 26, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit—Judges Scott Matheson, Carlos Lucero, and Carolyn McHugh—unanimously affirmed the district court’s ruling.

    Writing for the court, Matheson said:[10]

    “ In Janus, the Court said the First Amendment right against compelled speech protects non-members of public sector unions from having to pay “agency” or “fair share” fees—fees that compensate the union for collective bargaining but not for partisan activity. Mr. Hendrickson contends that, under Janus, the Union cannot (1) retain dues that had been deducted from his paycheck, or (2) serve as his exclusive bargaining representative. The district court dismissed these claims. …

    We affirm the district court’s decisions to grant the Union’s motion for summary judgment and the New Mexico Defendants’ motion to dismiss. We remand to the district court with instructions to amend its judgment to reflect that (1) the dismissal of Mr. Hendrickson’s request for prospective relief on Count 1 as moot and (2) the dismissal of Count 2 against the New Mexico Defendants based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, are both “without prejudice.”[9]

    		”

    President Barack Obama (D) appointed Matheson and McHugh to the court. President Bill Clinton (D) appointed Lucero.

    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.[11]

    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.[11]

    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."[11]

    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 PacerMonitor, "Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 et al," accessed June 25, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18, et al," accessed June 25, 2021
    3. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Seeking Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Damages for Deprivation of First Amendment Rights," March 15, 2019
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-1606," accessed June 25, 2021
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List 595 U.S.," November 1, 2021
    6. ↑ Liberty Justice Center, "Hendrickson v. AFSCME," accessed April 5, 2021
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-1606," accessed June 25, 2021
    8. ↑ United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, "Memorandum Opinion and Order," January 22, 2020
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, "Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico," March 26, 2021
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 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=Hendrickson_v._AFSCME_Council_18&oldid=9203466"