Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union
Case number: 19-CV-2012-CAB-KSC
Status: Dismissed
Important dates
Filed:
District court decision: January 30, 2020 Dismissed with Prejudice
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
The complaint was Dismissed with Prejudice.

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.

Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on January 30, 2020. Stephen Nichols asserted that his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association were violated. Nichols’ rights ensure that he cannot be compelled by his employer to pay any fees to a union unless he affirmatively consents to waive that right, yet The Home Care Providers Union subtracted union dues from his salary.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Stephen Nichols. The defendant was The Home Care Providers Union.
  • The issue: This was a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on Defendant’s The Home Care Providers Union’s deprivation of Stephen Nichols’rrights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as set forth in “Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018) (“Janus”).
  • The presiding judge(s):Cathy Ann Benecivengo,a bipartisan judge nominated by President Barack Obama on May 11, 2011.
  • The outcome: The lawsuit was dismissed on January 30, 2020, United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Stephen Nichols. He was represented by Philip Mauriello, Jr. The defendant was The Home Care Providers Union. The union was represented by The attorneys of Altshuler Berzon.

    The plaintiff in Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union first filed his lawsuit on October 18, 2019 , in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

    • January 13, 2019: The plaintiff, Stephen Nichols in “Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union” filed his complaint and claim for relief.
    • December 13, 2019: The defendant, The Home Care Providers Union filed a Motion to Dismiss based on failure to state a claim.
    • December 30, 2019: Judge Bencivengo granted The Home Care Providers Union’s Motion to Dismiss [2]

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    The case was dismissed with prejudice in favor of the defendant.

    On January 30, 2020, Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued a dismissal in favor of The Home Care Providers Union.

    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.[3]

    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.[3]

    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."[3]

    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. ↑ [http://assets2.pacermonitor.com/filings/Nichols_v_The_Home_Care_Providers_Union/Nichols_v_The_Home_Care_Providers_Union__casdce-19-02012__0018.0.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEAoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQCNiKbpFhMZstPAlEkoguHHjcSCL%2F1tToVbUpldrgOK2wIgAkPvJYswu8yf83OX6bLSVUfCXqF2%2Bn2LWZJm1a2g8tkqtAMIMhABGgw5MjQ2NTE0MDgzOTgiDPTuHHXNKgOvT3aNPiqRA7fFPYJtg4Sf4DP76gbzeLl9iIVDxhv5Mw%2BYeviWm%2F5%2FNO0C07VCw4KYknD%2Bd5CZTiBHj%2BWLd2k2%2BylThffaBZNuuHaqv0OG%2FG8j%2FImRnhMoNBpDC1KVR4g15%2FLhBunyl92VC%2BZrGyj3RPQv2L4cvBhCHZaxKlNAIoC6vLudEjY%2FPbJsHCNpW8otEoLzr6ScSfbqcHToMQCGviNYbw%2FgdQ9x7X9p5Bi3CMBzSTbyWash06oNkCQfa2IRCYP49yJ07EPU5itcvMBjkL82btgemz14v6ITrnUtDJMWgqkknFGmZVhemwH%2BQgjRi02d0IgqkPzMExchDo06MEeefl1iTiGPepwdm5FdUqYONCoSWpcdBviY6WwiJOr%2BRsQ7Xyp81CIAohvqy2eRExF0hDb5au0BQXFn1anJkkEnNky2WB9Pk4fpSXwo5fWJUVgPNfdMgwoDBvzmd7qhTLQZArS9YsR7oQs2ImpGaJlZNZWak%2Baa6toGvH9OwtiHQ0nnrXuzzxzzwm%2Bq6zgwr86lFA96cJVAMPHW%2FPQFOusBluxMr%2F5FRvArgO%2FLzzn6PrYu4LAdbQVE9pBPm2onXKXJWIlexoiBFCz%2FoG88zQgFsuAkI6rgaz4OEFJKZJqd7mhg5mQVQib3ECied4mjCArXwt6c59hODyoeYp5Us2HaeaEMY%2FndSsk5bFQCyeIoi%2BbJXcuC3VsMb1i85zzO0xY%2Bz41PKyYTLO8nWVFbRElikjhSVBolOgzg%2Fl6fhtoYEI4mM2FCrr3SGj2FLzufCkNgtm3AM9gC98NTivvWdbXgtjjcev45iKSe7y5zcXFV9A1x2Gv7WdWdMVGupxxyuaaDKkKhKARDF7erNw%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20200421T181601Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=599&X-Amz-Credential=ASIA5OSMEZQHLHWTZK6N%2F20200421%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=c4945a54e9124059bc690e18366d44c94d3bad5abbbc8198610704c37e0e839c Nichols_v_The_Home_Care_Providers_Union__casdce-19-02012__0018.0.pdf Pacer Monitor “DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE”, January 30, 2019]
    2. ↑ “Dismissal with prejudice”, January 30, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 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=Nichols_v._Home_Care_Providers_Union&oldid=9203540"