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

Hough v. SEIU Local 521

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hough v. SEIU Local 521
Case number: 21-480
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Aug. 13, 2018
District court decision:
March 20, 2019
Appeals court decision:
April 27, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Dec. 6, 2021
District court outcome
Unions are not liable to refund fair-share fees collected prior to Janus.
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.

Hough v. SEIU Local 521 was decided by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 27, 2021. The panel affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's March 2019 decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on December 6, 2021. The plaintiff's class action complaint sought refunds for union fair-share fees collected prior to the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. In Janus, the high court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support union activities.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was William Hough, a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority employee. The defendant was Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 521.
  • The issue: Must unions refund non-member fair-share fees collected prior to Janus?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Vince Girdhari Chhabria presided over the case in the district court. The three-judge appellate panel included Ninth Circuit Judges Sidney Thomas, Atsushi Wallace Tashima, and Barry Silverman.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's ruling in favor of the defendant. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was William Hough, a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority employee. He was represented by the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation and Gary Till & Burlingham. The defendant was SEIU Local 521, represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP and Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld.

    Hough first filed his lawsuit on August 13, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He sought to certify a class of all non-union members forced to pay fair-share fees to SEIU Local 521, and sought refunds for fair-share fees collected prior to Janus.

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

    • August 13, 2018: Hough filed a complaint against SEIU Local 521.
    • November 5, 2018: Hough filed an amended complaint.
    • December 6, 2018: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit and asked the court for summary judgment.
    • March 20, 2019: The court granted SEIU Local 521’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling in Janus v. AFSCME does not entitle the plaintiff to a refund of fair-share fees collected prior to the Janus ruling.
    • April 18, 2019: The plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • April 27, 2021: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • September 23, 2021: The plaintiff, along with public-sector workers in three other lawsuits, filed a joint petition for a 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 March 20, 2019, Judge Vince Girdhari Chhabria ruled in favor of the defendants. Chhabria wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “ [C]onsidering this issue outside the rubric of good-faith reliance, there is a strong argument that when the highest judicial authority has previously deemed conduct constitutional, reversal of course by that judicial authority should never, as a categorical matter, result in retrospective monetary relief based on that conduct. Perhaps that's why the Supreme Court did not address whether Mr. Janus himself was entitled to the refund he sought, instead simply remanding for further proceedings. ... At least in situations where the Supreme Court has reversed a prior ruling but not specified that the party before it is entitled to retrospective monetary relief, it seems unlikely that lower courts should even consider awarding retrospective monetary relief based on conduct the Court had previously authorized.[6] ”
    —Judge Vince Girdhari Chhabria

    Chhabria was appointed to the court in 2014 by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On April 27, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Judges Sidney Thomas, Atsushi Wallace Tashima, and Barry Silverman—affirmed the district court's decision:[3]

    “

    The district court properly granted summary judgment 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, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). [Danielson v. Inslee], 945 F.3d at 1097-99 (“[P]rivate parties may invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under42U.S.C.§1983, where they acted in direct reliance on then-binding Supreme Court precedent and presumptively-valid state law.”). [6]

    		”

    Thomas, Tashima, and Silverman were appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton (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.[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

    Trial court

    Appeals court

    Supreme Court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, "Hough v. Service Employees International Union Local 521," accessed March 16, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "William Hough v. SEIU Local 521," accessed March 16, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Justia, "WILLIAM HOUGH V. SEIU LOCAL 521, No. 19-15792 (9th Cir. 2021)," April 27, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order list: 595 U.S.," December 6, 2021
    5. ↑ CourtListener, "Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment" March 20, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    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=Hough_v._SEIU_Local_521&oldid=9203469"