Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Hernandez v. AFSCME California

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hernandez v. AFSCME California
Case number: 0:20-cv-15076
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Aug. 31, 2018
District court decision:
Dec. 20, 2019
Appeals court decision:
July 29, 2021
District court outcome
Union dues authorizations signed prior to Janus are enforceable.
Appeals court outcome
Affirmed district court's dismissal of the case.

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.

Hernandez v. AFSCME California was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 29, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 31, 2018, challenging the validity of union dues authorizations signed prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. The district court dismissed the case on December 20, 2019. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's decision on July 29, 2021.[1][2][3]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The lead plaintiff was Liliana Hernandez. The lead defendant was AFSCME California.
  • The issue: Are union dues authorization contracts signed prior to Janus enforceable?
  • The presiding judges: Judge William Shubb presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Senior Judge Mary Schroeder, Senior Judge Barry Silverman, and Judge Mary Murguia—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska's dismissal of the case.

    • Procedural history

    The lead plaintiff was Liliana Hernandez, represented by counsel from Talcott Franklin P.C., Mitchell Law, PLLC, and Benbrook Law Group. The lead defendant was AFSCME California, represented by counsel from Beeson, Tayer & Bodine and Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC. For a complete list of plaintiffs and defendants in this suit, click here.

    The plaintiffs first filed their lawsuit on August 31, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of union dues authorizations signed prior to Janus v. AFSCME, arguing that these authorizations did not meet the standard for affirmative consent required by Janus. The suit sought to establish four separate classes. The first class included public employees forced to pay fees to AFSCME California against their will as a condition of employment, including non-members charged fair-share fees, union members who were not informed they could opt-out of membership, and union members who would not have joined if fair-share fees were not charged to non-members. The second class included employees who attempted to terminate union membership but were still charged union dues. The third class included employees who wished to resign union membership and those who would decline union membership if informed of their constitutional rights under Janus. The fourth class was a defendant class of all AFSCME affiliates, represented by AFSCME Local 3299, AFSCME Local 2620, and AFSCME Local 3634. The suit sought refunds for fair-share fees and a declaration that Cal. Gov’t Codes §§3583.5 and §1157.12(b), regarding fair-share fees, were unconstitutional.[3]

    Below is an abbreviated procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2]

    • August 31, 2018: Plaintiff Lilana Hernandez filed a complaint against AFSCME California, AFSCME Local 3299, The Regents of the University of California, Edmund G.Brown, Xavier Becerra, Mark Gregersen, Eric Banks, Priscilla Winslow, Erich Shiners, and Arthur A. Krantz.
    • September 7, 2018: The Regents of the University of California were dismissed voluntarily from the suit by the plaintiff.
    • November 2, 2018: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding Miranda Alexander, Natasha Joffe, and Rohit Sharma as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the payroll deductions of union dues.
    • November 19, 2018: The defendants filed opposition briefs.
    • November 30, 2018: The defendants filed an answer to the plaintiff's first amended complaint.
    • April 22, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, asking the court to add a defendant class of all AFSCME affiliates, represented by AFSCME Local 3299, AFSCME Local 2620, and AFSCME Local 3634.
    • June 28, 2019: The defendants filed an answer to the to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.
    • December 19, 2019: The court ruled in favor of all defendants and dismissed the suit, finding that union dues authorization contracts were still valid.
    • January 15, 2020: The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • July 29, 2021: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court

    On December 19, 2019, Judge William B. Shubb ruled in favor of all defendants and dismissed the suit. Shubb wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “ The Janus waiver requirement is inapplicable here. The plaintiff in Janus never agreed to become a union member and never agreed to pay union fees. ... Here, plaintiffs voluntarily joined the union. … Further, as counsel for plaintiffs agreed at oral argument, "[t]he fact that plaintiffs would not have opted to pay union membership fees if Janus had been the law at the time of their decision does not mean their decision was therefore coerced." ... Because this case is about voluntary members, the union defendants have not violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. Accordingly, defendants do not need to show a Janus waiver to enforce the agreement.

    What is left is an attempt by plaintiffs not to be bound by valid contracts. This court finds no constitutional objection to the performance of the membership agreements.[5]

    		”

    Shubb was appointed to the court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush (R).

    Appeals court

    On July 29, 2021, a three-judge panel—Senior Judge Mary Schroeder, Senior Judge Barry Silverman, and Judge Mary Murguia—affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. The court's memorandum said:[6]

    “

    The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim arising out of compulsory agency fees paid to AFSCME Local 2620 because a public sector union can, as a matter of law, “invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it collected” prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31 [See Danielson v. Inslee ...].

    The district court properly dismissed Porter’s claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of standing because Porter failed to establish that he had suffered or would imminently suffer an injury-in-fact. ... Summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims arising from union membership dues deductions. See Belgau v. Inslee ... [5]

    		”

    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.[7]

    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.[7]

    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."[7]

    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

    Local 3634, AFSCME Local 3299, and AFSCME Local 2620 to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class-Action Complaint," June 28, 2019]

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, "Hernandez v. AFSCME California et al," accessed August 10, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Liliana Hernandez, et al v. AFSCME California, et al," accessed August 10, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Plaintiff’s Class-Action Complaint Jury Trial Demanded," August 31, 2018
    4. ↑ Casetext, Hernandez v. AFSCME Cal.,” accessed April 24, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2021/07/29/20-15076.pdf United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Memorandum," July 29, 2021]
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 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=Hernandez_v._AFSCME_California&oldid=9203475"