It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!

Routh v. Inslee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Routh v. Inslee
Case number: 2:14-cv-00200
Status: Decided
Important dates
Filed: February 11, 2014
District court decision: Decided
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
Decided

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.

Hoffman et al v. Department of Social Health Services of the State of Washington was settled by judge Marsha Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 19, 2020. The settlement required SEIU 775 to pay $3,250,000 in damages to the plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees in the amount of 25% of the $3,250,000 common fund, an award of litigation costs in the amount of $19,461, and an award of class administration fees of $80,000. The plaintiffs were challenging SEIU’s automatic dues deductions.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Pamela Centeno, Mary Hoffman, Susan Routh, and Janice Wilen. The defendants were the Department of Social and Health Services of the State of Washington and SEIU Healthcare 775NW.
  • The issue: The plaintiffs, who were members of the Service Employees International Union Local 775 (SEIU 775), sought damages on behalf of individual provider home care aides (IPs), arguing that the state and the union conspired to divert subsidy money from caregivers who had no intention of joining SEIU.
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Marsha Pechman presided over the case. She joined the court in 1999 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton (D).
  • The outcome: The district court ruled SEIU 775 must pay $3,250,000 in damages to the plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees in the amount of 25 percent of the $3,250,000 common fund, an award of litigation costs in the amount of $19,461, and an award of class administration fees of $80,000.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Pamela Centeno, Mary Hoffman, Susan Routh, and Janice Wilen. They were represented by Carson & Noel PLLC, Gordon Thomas Honeywell (sea), and Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP. The defendants were the Department of Social and Health Services of the State of Washington and SEIU Healthcare 775NW. They were represented by the Washington State Office of the Attorney General.

    The plaintiffs in Hoffman et al v. Department of Social Health Services of the State of Washington first filed their lawsuit on February 11, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. They sought damages on behalf of IPs, arguing that the state and the union conspired to divert subsidy money from caregivers who had no intention of joining SEIU.

    • August 16, 2016: The plaintiffs’ claims were initially dismissed.[5]
    • December 14, 2018: Notice of Appeal filed by Mary Jane Aurdal Olson.
    • October 1, 2019: Settlement approval between defendant and plaintiffs.
    • April 29, 2020: The Court held a final fairness hearing and orders the settlement.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    On April 29, 2020, Marsha Pechman granted the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement, Motion for Class Certification, and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Judge Marsha Pechman wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ All IPs who, during the period February 11, 2011, through February 11, 2019, (the “Settlement Class Period”) paid dues or fees to SEIU 775 through payroll deductions made by the State of Washington pursuant to RCW 41.56.113(1)(b)(i), without a signed Union membership/dues authorization card in effect at the time of the deduction… The terms set forth in the Settlement are approved as being fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of the amount of recovery obtained in relation to the risks faced by the Class in litigating the claims, and in relation to the specific litigation risks faced by each Subclass. The Court finds that the Settlement was negotiated in good faith and at arm’s length by qualified, experienced and informed counsel.

    [6]

    		”
    —Judge Marsha Pechman

    Marsha Pechman joined the court in 1999 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton. She served as chief judge of the court in from 2011 to 2016.

    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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Pacer Monitor, "Hoffman et al v. Department of Social Health Services of the State of Washington," accessed August 31, 2020
    2. ↑ Freedom Foundation, "Six Ways SEIU 775 Is Getting Around Harris v. Quinn," accessed August 31, 2020
    3. ↑ Freedom Foundation, "SEIU 775 To Pay Back Millions of Dollars in Dues Taken Illegally from Home Care Workers," accessed September 1, 2020
    4. ↑ Washington Examiner, "Class action lawsuits alleges union and Washington state conspired to ripoff caregivers," accessed September 1, 2020
    5. ↑ casetext, "Hoffman v. Inslee," accessed September 1, 2020
    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=Routh_v._Inslee&oldid=9203460"