Quirarte v. UDW AFSCME Local 3930

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Quirarte v. United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930
Case number: 22-213
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: July 11, 2019
District court decision:
Feb. 10, 2020
Appeals court decision:
June 8, 2022
Supreme Court decision:
Nov. 7, 2022
District court outcome
Dismissed with prejudice.
Appeals court outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari denied.

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.

Quirarte v. United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930 was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 8, 2022. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California's February 2020 dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs' lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of public-sector unions continuing to deduct union dues from former members' pay based on agreements signed prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiffs also alleged that deducting dues from homecare providers' pay violated the Medicaid Act's anti-reassignment provision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court in consolidation with a related case, Polk v. Yee. The Supreme Court denied the petition on November 7, 2022.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Nora Maya, Anh Le, Viet Le, and Jose Diaz. The defendants were the United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930 and California State Controller Betty Yee (D) in her official capacity.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, can public-sector unions deduct union dues from employees' pay, regardless of union membership status, if there is a pre-existing agreement for deductions throughout a given time period? Also, does deducting dues from homecare providers' pay violate the Medicaid Act's anti-reassignment provision?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez, U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, and Chief U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota John Tunheim—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Nora Maya, Anh Le, Viet Le, and Jose Diaz. Alicia Quirarte was an original plaintiff but was not a party to the appeal. The plaintiffs were represented by counsel from the Freedom Foundation and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. The defendants were the United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930 and California State Controller Betty Yee (D) in her official capacity. Attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP represented the union, and attorneys from the California attorney general's office represented Yee.[2][5]

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

    • August 23, 2019: The defendants filed answers to the plaintiffs’ complaint.
    • December 13, 2019: The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
    • January 17, 2020: The plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
    • February 10, 2020: Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted the defendants’ judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim with prejudice.
    • June 8, 2022: A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed Bencivengo's dismissal of the case and a related case, Polk v. Yee.
    • September 6, 2022: The plaintiffs in this case and Polk v. Yee filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • November 7, 2022: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On February 10, 2020, Judge Cathy Bencivengo issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim. Bencivengo wrote:[3]

    “

    Even if Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged state action, Plaintiffs have ultimately failed to demonstrate that Defendants violated their First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs contend that Janus requires proof of a First Amendment waiver to establish consent to dues deductions. [Doc. No. 36 at 14.] Plaintiffs have not cited to, and the Court has been unable to find on its own, any case that has broadened the scope of Janus to apply Plaintiffs’ waiver requirement argument when employees voluntarily agree to become members of the union and authorize the deduction of union dues. The Court agrees with the numerous courts in this circuit that have held the opposite. The waiver requirement does not apply to the circumstances in this case compared to the situation in Janus involving the deduction of agency fees from a nonmember.[6]

    		”

    Appellate court decision

    On June 8, 2022, a three-judge panel—Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Paez, U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, and Chief U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota John Tunheim—affirmed the district court's ruling in this case and a related case, Polk v. Yee. Nguyen wrote in the court's opinion:[7]

    “

    For a federal statute to confer a right, 'Congress must have intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff.'… Here, the text and legislative history of the anti-reassignment provision make clear that Congress was focused on preventing fraud and abuse in state Medicaid programs rather than on serving the needs of Medicaid providers. Because Congress did not intend to benefit Medicaid providers, we hold that the anti-reassignment provision does not confer a right that they can enforce under § 1983. …

    Both district courts dismissed these cases for the same reasons. As to the First Amendment claim, the district courts concluded that the unions were not state actors and that appellants' consent to pay union dues precluded any First Amendment liability. This court subsequently decided Belgau v. Inslee, which rejected a virtually identical First Amendment claim on the same rationale. … Appellants now concede that Belgau forecloses their First Amendment claim. As to the Medicaid Act claim, both district courts held that the anti-reassignment provision does not confer a right on providers that is enforceable under § 1983. …

    Appellants also point out that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) adopted their broad interpretation of the anti-reassignment provision in a 2019 regulation. … More recently, however, CMS issued a rule clarifying that employment-type payroll deductions do not violate the anti-reassignment provision. …

    We therefore hold that the Medicaid Act's anti-reassignment provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(32), does not confer a right on Medicaid providers enforceable under § 1983. We affirm the district courts' dismissals of these cases. [6]

    		”

    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

    Supreme Court

    Appellate court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, “Quirarte et al v. United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930 et al,” accessed August 3, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Alicia Quirarte, et al v. UDWA AFSCME Local 3930, et al,” accessed August 3, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 PacerMonitor, "Order Granting Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings," February 10, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List: 598 U.S.," November 7, 2022
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for Writ of Certiorari," September 6, 2022
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "Polk v. Yee: Opinion," June 8, 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=Quirarte_v._UDW_AFSCME_Local_3930&oldid=9203462"