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

Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association
Case number: 22-498
Status: Pending before the U.S. Supreme Court
Important dates
Filed: March 28, 2019
District court decision:
May 18, 2021
Appeals court decision:
Aug. 24, 2022
Supreme Court decision:
Pending
District court outcome
Chief District Judge Kimberly Mueller ruled in favor of the defendants.
Appeals court outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Pending

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.

Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association was filed on March 28, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The suit challenged maintenance of membership provisions restricting union resignation to an opt-out window of 30 days from the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. On May 18, 2021, Chief District Judge Kimberly Mueller ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed Mueller's ruling on August 24, 2022. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 22, 2022.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff is Kristine Kurk. The defendants are the Los Rios Classified Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 620, Los Rios Community College District, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, Los Rios Community College District Board of Trustees president John Knight in his official capacity, San Luis Coastal Unified School District superintendent Eric Prater in his official capacity, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) in his official capacity.
  • The issue: Can unions enforce maintenance of membership provisions restricting union resignation to opt out windows at the expiration of collective bargaining agreements?
  • The presiding judges: Chief District Judge Kimberly Mueller presided over the case in the district court. A three-judge panel—Judge Sidney Thomas, Senior Judge Richard Paez, and Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: This lawsuit is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff is Kristine Kurk. Attorneys from the Freedom Foundation represent Kurk. The defendants are the Los Rios Classified Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 620, Los Rios Community College District, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, Los Rios Community College District Board of Trustees president John Knight in his official capacity, San Luis Coastal Unified School District superintendent Eric Prater in his official capacity, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) in his official capacity. Attorneys from Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP, Parker & Covert, and the California attorney general's office represent the defendants.

    The original plaintiffs, Kristine Kurk and Susan Shroll, filed their lawsuit on March 28, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that being forced to retain union membership and pay dues until a 30-day opt-out window violated their First Amendment rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME.

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

    • March 28, 2019: Original plaintiffs Susan Shroll and Kristine Kurk filed a complaint against the Los Rios Classified Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 620, Los Rios Community College District, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, Los Rios Community College District Board of Trustees president John Knight in his official capacity, San Luis Coastal Unified School District superintendent Eric Prater in his official capacity, and then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) in his official capacity.
    • June 25, 2019: Plaintiff Susan Shroll was dismissed from the suit voluntarily. Defendants Xavier Becerra and the Los Rios Classified Employees Association filed answers to the complaint.
    • April 17, 2020: Plaintiff Kristine Kurk and defendants Xavier Becerra and the Los Rios Classified Employees Association filed motions for summary judgment.
    • May 1, 2020: Plaintiff Kristine Kurk and defendants Xavier Becerra and the Los Rios Classified Employees Association filed documents in opposition to each others' motions for summary judgment.
    • May 18, 2021: Chief District Judge Kimberly Mueller ruled in favor of the defendants.
    • August 2, 2021: Plaintiff Kristine Kurk appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • August 24, 2022: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • November 22, 2022: Plaintiff Kristine Kurk filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    District court decision

    On May 18, 2021, Chief District Judge Kimberly Mueller ruled in favor of the defendants. Mueller wrote:[5]

    “

    Plaintiff concedes she voluntarily agreed to union membership during her onboarding process when she personally signed the Dues Check Off Form as a new hire in 1997. ... This authorization continued through every [Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)] since Kurk joined in 1997 through June 30, 2020, after Janus was decided. ... She exercised the power to enter a contract with [the Los Rios Classified Employees Association (LRCEA)] that provided for representation as well as union membership and dues deductions. ...

    By electing to join the union and receive the benefits of membership, Kurk agreed to bear the financial burden of membership. ... The court finds as a matter of law plaintiff cannot establish LRCEA is a state actor liable under § 1983. Conversely, the State as a matter of law cannot be liable for declaratory relief as plaintiff seeks. ...

    Because LRCEA continued to deduct union dues until the CBA expired ... plaintiff has a claim for retrospective damages she may file in state court. Supplemental jurisdiction, is 'a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right . . . decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law.' ... Here, the court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any contract-based claim for damages for dues paid by plaintiff from September 19, 2018 to July 1, 2020. ... For the reasons set forth above, the court grants defendants’ motions for summary judgment[.] ... Kurk’s motion for summary judgment ... is denied as moot.[6]

    		”

    President Barack Obama (D) appointed Mueller to the court in 2010.

    Appellate court decision

    On August 24, 2022, a three-judge panel—Judge Sidney Thomas, Senior Judge Richard Paez, and Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee—affirmed the district court's ruling. The court's memorandum said:[7]

    “

    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kurk’s First Amendment claim for damages because Kurk’s continued union membership and the deduction of union membership dues arose from the private membership agreement between the union and Kurk, and 'private dues agreements do not trigger state action and independent constitutional scrutiny.' Belgau v. Inslee ... see id. at 950-52 (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 supporting the union and paying union dues that were agreed upon under voluntarily entered membership agreements); Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. ... (discussing mutual assent).

    Kurk’s claims for prospective relief are moot. Kurk is no longer a member of the union, defendants stopped deducting union membership dues or enforcing the challenged statutes, and defendants demonstrated that they are unlikely to rescind the policy changes.[6]

    		”

    President Bill Clinton (D) appointed Thomas and Paez to the court, and President Donald Trump appointed Lee to the court.

    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.[8]

    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.[8]

    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."[8]

    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

    Supreme Court

    Appeals court

    Trial court


    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, "Kurk, et al v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association, et al," accessed November 29, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Kristine Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees, et al," accessed November 29, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 22-498," accessed November 29, 2022
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 PacerMonitor, "Complaint for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983," March 28, 2019
    5. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Order," May 18, 2021
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Memorandum," August 24, 2022
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 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=Kurk_v._Los_Rios_Classified_Employees_Association&oldid=9203563"