Jackson v. Napolitano

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Jackson v. Napolitano
Case number: 3:19-cv-01427
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: July 30, 2019
District court decision:
Oct. 14, 2020
District court outcome
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

Jackson v. Napolitano was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on October 14, 2020. The suit argued that maintenance of membership provisions that restrict union resignation to 30-day windows violated the First Amendment, and sought refunds for all union dues collected without affirmative consent.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Tory Smith and Michael Jackson. The defendants were Janet Napolitano, Teamsters Local 2010, Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), and California Controller Betty T. Yee (D).
  • The issue: May unions enforce union dues authorization contracts signed before Janus v. AFSCME, including maintenance of membership provisions?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Larry Alan Burns was appointed to the suit. Burns was appointed to the court in 2003 by President George W. Bush (R).
  • The outcome: The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Tory Smith and Michael Jackson. They were represented by the Liberty Justice Center and Pacific Legal Foundation. The defendants were Janet Napolitano, Teamsters Local 2010, Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), and California Controller Betty T. Yee (D). Janet Napolitano was represented by Hanson Bridgett LLP. Teamsters Local 2010 was represented by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine. Xavier Becerra and Betty T. Yee were represented by the California attorney general's office.

    The plaintiffs in Jackson v. Napolitano first filed their lawsuit on July 30, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs, public employees who wished to resign union membership after the Janus v. AFSCME decision, were told they could not resign until 30 days before the collective bargaining agreement’s end date. The plaintiffs asserted that this requirement violated their First Amendment rights. The suit asked the court to declare maintenance of membership provisions restricting union resignation to opt-out windows to be unconstitutional and sought refunds for all dues collected without affirmative consent. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought to overturn Cal. Gov’t Code sections 1157.12, 3513(i), 3515, 3515.5, 3583 and California Senate Bill 866.[1] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[2]

    • July 30, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a complaint against all defendants.
    • September 26, 2019: Defendant Janet Napolitano filed a motion to dismiss the suit.
    • September 27, 2019: Defendants Xavier Becerra, Betty T. Yee and the Teamsters Local 2010 filed a motion to dismiss the suit.
    • October 29, 2019: The plaintiffs responded to the motions to dismiss.
    • March 27, 2020: Defendant Teamsters Local 2010 filed an amended motion to dismiss in light of recent action by the union releasing the defendants from union membership and refunding them for dues collected since the statute of limitations.
    • June 1, 2020: The plaintiffs responded to the motions to dismiss.
    • September 23, 2020: Judge Larry Burns issued an order granting the union's second motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and denying the other motions to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs had 21 days to file a memorandum.
    • October 14, 2020: Burns dismissed the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    On October 14, 2020, Judge Larry Burns dismissed the case, writing the following:[3]

    “

    On September 23, the Court granted in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court’s reasoning rested, in part, on Plaintiffs’ claims having become moot after Defendant Teamsters Local 2010 refunded union dues that had been withheld from their paychecks. Plaintiffs have now filed notice that they do not intend to file a response, and conceding that this will result in dismissal of the action.

    Plaintiffs believe, however, that Defendant Teamsters Local 2010 will reissue their refund checks, and have made this request in their letter. In light of Defendants’ representations in support of their motions to dismiss, this is a reasonable understanding.

    The Court accepts Plaintiffs’ concession, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, but without leave to amend. This order does not preclude Plaintiffs from seeking reconsideration should Teamsters Local 2010 fail to reissue Plaintiffs’ refund checks.[4]

    		”

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

    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.[5]

    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.[5]

    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."[5]

    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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Pacific Legal, “Civil Rights Complaint,” accessed April 28, 2020
    2. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Jackson et al v. Napolitano et al," accessed June 1, 2021
    3. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Order of dismissal," October 14, 2020
    4. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 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=Jackson_v._Napolitano&oldid=9203537"