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

Masuo v. AFSCME AFL-CIO

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Masuo v. AFSCME AFL-CIO
Case number: 21-480
Status: Appealed to the Supreme Court
Important dates
Filed: Sept. 20, 2018
District court decision:
March 31, 2020
Appeals court decision:
May 25, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Pending
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME.
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.

Masuo v. AFSCME AFL-CIO is a case pending appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 25, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon's March 2020 dismissal of the suit. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiffs' class-action complaint sought refunds for union fair-share fees deducted from non-union members' wages. 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][5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The lead plaintiff is Steven Masuo, a public employee in Oregon. The lead defendant is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees International Union, AFL-CIO.
  • The issue: Can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding agency fees paid prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which held that such fees were unconstitutional?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Michael H. Simon presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Judges Richard Paez, Daniel Bress, and Danielle Forrest—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: This case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    • Procedural history

    The lead plaintiff is Steven Masuo, a public employee in Oregon. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. and the Freedom Foundation. Jenni Chambers and Terry Godwin were plaintiffs during the district proceedings, but were not named as parties to the appeal. The lead defendant is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. The defendants are represented by attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP, Swanson, Thomas, Coon & Newton, and Bennett Hartman Morris & Kaplan, LLP. For a complete list of plaintiffs and defendants named in this lawsuit, click here.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5]

    • September 20, 2018: The plaintiffs filed their class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The case name and number were Chambers et al v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees International Union, AFL-CIO et al, 3:18-cv-01685. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
    • January 22, 2019: A hearing was held regarding the defendants’ motion to dismiss and oral arguments were heard.
    • March 31, 2020: The district court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint based on precedent in Danielson v. Inslee.
    • April 27, 2020: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case name and number were Steven Masuo, et al v. AFSCME, et al, 0:20-cv-35355). The lead plaintiff listed in the district court case, Jenni Chambers, was not included on the docket as a party to the appeal.
    • May 25, 2021: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
    • September 23, 2021: The plaintiffs, along with public-sector workers in three other lawsuits, filed a joint 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 March 31, 2020, Michael H. Simon issued an order in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim. Simon wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    In Danielson, the Ninth Circuit addressed a case involving almost identical facts, claims, and defenses. The Ninth Circuit, agreeing with the Seventh Circuit, stated:

    We hold that the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for monetary relief against the Union. In so ruling, we join the Seventh Circuit, the only other circuit to have addressed the question before us. ... We agree with our sister circuit that a union defendant can invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it collected pre-Janus, where its conduct was directly authorized under both state law and decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Union was not required to forecast changing winds at the Supreme Court and anticipatorily presume the overturning of Abood. Instead, we permit private parties to rely on judicial pronouncements of what the law is, without exposing themselves to potential liability for doing so.

    Danielson, 945 F.3d at 1098-99. In that case, the Ninth Circuit thoroughly explained its rationale. See Danielson, 945 F.3d at 1099-102. There is no need to repeat it here. Under binding Ninth Circuit precedent, Defendants here may assert good faith as a complete defense to Plaintiffs’ claim under § 1983.[6]

    		”

    Simon was appointed by President Barack Obama (D) in 2010.

    Appellate court decision

    A three-judge panel—Judges Richard Paez, Daniel Bress, and Danielle Forrest—affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.[2]

    Paez joined the court in 2000 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton (D). Bress and Forrest both joined the court in 2019 after being nominated by President Donald Trump (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.[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

    Supreme Court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, “Chambers et al v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees International Union, AFL-CIO et al,” accessed May 8, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 PacerMonitor, “Steven Masuo, et al v. AFSCME, et al,” accessed June 28, 2021 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacerappeal" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacerappeal" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacerappeal" defined multiple times with different content
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Court Listener, “Chambers v. AFSCME AFL-CIO: Complaint - Class-Action,” September 20, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, “Chambers v. AFSCME AFL-CIO: Opinion and Order,” accessed March 31, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 21-480," accessed October 12, 2021
    6. ↑ 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=Masuo_v._AFSCME_AFL-CIO&oldid=9203506"