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

Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group
Case number: 22-576
Status: Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court
Important dates
Filed: Sept. 24, 2018
District court decision:
Oct. 4, 2019
Appeals court decision:
Sept. 19, 2022
Supreme Court decision:
Pending
District court outcome
Settlement and dismissal.
Appeals court outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.
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.

Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 19, 2022. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington's 2019 dismissal of the case.[1] The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on December 19, 2022.[2]

Plaintiff Cindy Ochoa, an in-home care provider, filed a lawsuit on September 24, 2018, against SEIU Local 775 and others, including Public Consulting Group, Inc., claiming that union dues had been withheld from her paycheck and paid "to a union to which she [did] not belong and [did] not want to belong, in part based on a signature forged by a union representative."[3] Ochoa asked the court for declaratory judgments that the defendants had violated her First Amendment rights by "withdrawing union dues without her consent" and by "failing to employ and abide by procedural due process safeguards protecting her rights."[3]

During the proceedings, Ochoa and SEIU Local 775 settled for $28,000. On October 4, 2019, Judge Thomas Rice issued an order granting the state defendants' motion for summary judgment.[4] Ochoa appealed to the Ninth Circuit on October 15, 2019.[5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff is Cindy Ochoa, an in-home care provider. The defendants are Public Consulting Group, Inc., Public Partnerships LLC, Department of Social and Health Services Secretary Cheryl Strange in her official capacity, and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) in his official capacity.
  • The issue: Whether the plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated when union dues were withdrawn without her consent under an alleged forged signature, including withdrawals occurring after the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME.
  • The presiding judges: Judge Thomas Rice presided over the case in the district court. A three-judge panel—Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez, U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, and U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota John Tunheim—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington's dismissal of the case. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff is Cindy Ochoa, an in-home care provider. Attorneys from the Freedom Foundation represent Ochoa. The defendants are Public Consulting Group, Inc., Public Partnerships LLC, Department of Social and Health Services Secretary Cheryl Strange in her official capacity, and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) in his official capacity. Attorneys from Frank Freed Subit & Thomas; Evans, Craven & Lackie; and the Washington attorney general's office represent the defendants.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[5][6][1][2]

    • September 24, 2018: Ochoa filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington againt SEIU Local 775 and the defendants above.
    • January 11, 2019: Defendants Public Consulting Group, Inc., and Public Partnerships LLC filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
    • April 15, 2019: Judge Thomas Rice issued an order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss.
    • May 6, 2019: Ochoa filed an amended complaint.
    • May 20, 2019: Defendants Public Consulting Group, Inc., and Public Partnerships LLC filed a joint motion to dismiss Ochoa's amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
    • July 12, 2019: Rice issued an order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss.
    • July 31, 2019: State defendants Strange and Inslee filed a motion and memorandum for summary judgment.
    • October 4, 2019: Rice issued an order granting the state defendants' motion for summary judgment. During the proceedings, Ochoa and SEIU Local 775 settled for $28,000.
    • October 15, 2019: Ochoa filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • September 19, 2022: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.
    • December 19, 2022: Ochoa appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On October 4, 2019, Judge Thomas Rice wrote:[4]

    “

    First, Plaintiff ignores the fact that the two series of withdrawals stemmed from completely different events—a forgery and a mistake made during a transition period. As such, her 'repetitive nature' argument is misplaced.

    Second, there is no evidence that a forged authorization will occur again – Plaintiff has only presented one alleged instance in over 6 years in her role as an individual provider. Moreover, as of 2018, SEIU 775 must 'submit an attestation of authenticity that a voluntary, affirmative authorization was received from each individual provider listed for a dues deduction[.]' ... This adequately curbs Plaintiff’s concerns about a nefarious actor because SEIU 775 now has a vested interest in the accuracy of the information they provide. It is true that Plaintiff is not completely immunized from bad actors, but the constitution does not assure such.

    Third, her argument that mistakes may happen in the future is pure conjecture, as the process responsible for the second deprivation was a temporary work around that is no longer in effect. This argument falls woefully short of demonstrating a substantial likelihood of a future deprivation.

    Plaintiff has thus failed to demonstrate she has Article III standing.

    ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

    1. Defendants Cheryl Strange and Jay Inslee’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment of dismissal in favor of Defendants Washington State Governor Jay Inslee and Secretary of DSHS Cheryl Strange.

    2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68(a) and ECF No. 35, the Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment against SEIU 775 and in favor of Plaintiff Cindy Ellen Ochoa in the sum of $28,000 (twenty-eight thousand dollars) inclusive of (1) costs accrued prior to the date of this offer, including reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), and (2) attorneys’ fees not recoverable as costs under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b).[7]

    		”

    Rice joined the court in 2012 after being appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On September 19, 2022, a three-judge panel—Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez, U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, and U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota John Tunheim—affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. Paez wrote in the court's opinion:[1]

    “

    The district court dismissed all of Ochoa’s claims against [defendants Public Partnerships LLC and Public Consulting Group, Inc.] and granted summary judgment to Governor Inslee and Secretary Strange[.] ... We affirm.

    Ochoa has standing to bring her claims for prospective relief, and the district court erred in holding that PPL and PCG are not state actors. Ochoa, however, has not alleged facts sufficient to support a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim or a claim for violation of state law. ...

    Because Ochoa does not allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that she was deprived of a liberty interest, her Fourteenth Amendment claim against the private defendants and the State must fail.[7]

    		”

    President Bill Clinton (D) nominated Paez to the Ninth Circuit, and President Barack Obama (D) nominated Nguyen. Clinton nominated Tunheim to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

    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

    Trial court

    Appeals court

    Supreme Court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Opinion," September 19, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for Writ of Certiorari," December 19, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Complaint: Demand for jury trial," September 24, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 PacerMonitor, "Order granting state defendants' motion for summary judgment ," October 4, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 PacerMonitor, "Ochoa v. Service Employees International Union Local 775 et al," accessed May 23, 2021
    6. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Cindy Ochoa v. Service Employees Internationa, et al," accessed May 23, 2021
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    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=Ochoa_v._Public_Consulting_Group&oldid=9203455"