Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299
Case number: 2:19-cv-02382
Status: Pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Important dates
Filed: Nov. 26, 2019
District court decision:
Jan. 19, 2021
Appeals court decision:
Pending
District court outcome
Plaintiffs’ claims dismissed with prejudice.
Appeals 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.

Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299 is a case pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[1] The plaintiffs, University of California employees, argued that the AFSCME Local 3299’s multi-step resignation policy, which permitted union fee deductions after resignation, effectively prevented them from resigning union membership and violated their First Amendment rights under Janus v. AFSCME.[2] On January 19, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 17, 2021.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs are Stacey Davidson, Kiska Carter, Sandi Edde, Karen Jordan, Tamela Dioso, Lindsay Macomber, Barbara Grosse, Terrance Marsh, Theodore Mendoza, and Rebecca Van Antwerp. The defendants are the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3299, University of California President Michael Drake, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D).
  • The issue: Can unions enforce a multi-step resignation policy for union members seeking to resign membership?
  • The presiding judge: Judge John Mendez presided over the district court case.
  • The outcome: This lawsuit is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs are University of California employees Stacey Davidson, Kiska Carter, Sandi Edde, Karen Jordan, Tamela Dioso, Lindsay Macomber, Barbara Grosse, Terrance Marsh, Theodore Mendoza, and Rebecca Van Antwerp. They are represented by the Freedom Foundation and Tyler & Bursch, LLP. The defendants are the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3299, University of California President Michael Drake, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D). They are represented by Leonard Carder, LLP, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Hanson Bridgett LLP, and the Office of the Attorney General.

    The plaintiffs in Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299 first filed their lawsuit on November 26, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs argued they were effectively prevented from resigning union membership due to a complicated multi-step membership resignation policy. This policy restricted union resignations to a 30-day opt-out window and permitted the union to deduct a service fee until fee deductions were terminated during a separate opt-out window. The plaintiffs argued that this membership resignation policy violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as refunds for union dues collected during the course of employment or, alternatively, from the date of their first attempted resignations.[2]

    • November 26, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Regents of the University of California, Xavier Becerra, and AFSCME Local 3299 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
    • January 24, 2020: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, naming University of California President Janet Napolitano as a defendant in the place of the Regents of the University of California.
    • February 12, 2020: Defendants Becerra and Napolitano filed motions to dismiss. Additionally, all defendants filed a motion to stay discovery and initial disclosures until the motions to dismiss were resolved.
    • February 28, 2020: The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to stay discovery.
    • March 5, 2020: Defendant AFSCME Local 3299 filed a motion to dismiss.
    • March 26, 2020: The court granted the defendants’ motion to stay discovery, with the exception of plaintiffs Edde and Mendoza who were permitted to seek discovery.
    • July 27, 2020: The court issued an order denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike and granted defendants' motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs had 20 days to file an amended complaint.
    • August 17, 2020: The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
    • January 19, 2021: The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
    • February 17, 2021: The plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

    On January 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.

    Judge John Mendez presided over the case. He wrote:[3]

    “ For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ request for prospective relief on their compelled speech and due process claims are dismissed because once again the Court finds these claims are moot. Plaintiffs’ request for retrospective monetary relief on their due process claim against the Union is also dismissed because the Court again finds the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. Finally, the Court finds further amendment of Plaintiffs’ claims is futile and dismisses these claims with prejudice.[4] ”

    Mendez was appointed to the court in 2008 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

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Terrance Marsh, et al v. AFSCME Local 3299, et al," accessed March 22, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, "First Amended Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights Seeking Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Damages," January 24, 2020
    3. ↑ U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California," "Order Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice," January 19, 2021
    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=Marsh_v._AFSCME_Local_3299&oldid=9203498"