Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
Status: Settled/Terminated
Important dates
Filed: February 27, 2019
District court decision: November 13, 2019
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
This case was settled and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim. The district court dismissed the portion of the complaint challenging the union’s status as an exclusive bargaining representative.

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.

Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians was a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case was settled, and the plaintiff and defendants filed a joint dismissal on November 13, 2019. The plaintiff initially filed a claim that challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status. The plaintiff requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, compensatory damages in the amount of all union fees collected since employment or in the amount deducted since Janus v. AFSCME, costs, and attorney’s fees.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Alfred Sweet. The defendants were California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, and Acting Director of the California Department of State Hospitals Stephanie Clendenin.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period, regardless of membership status?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge John Mendez presided over the district court proceedings. Mendez was appointed by President George W. Bush (R).
  • The outcome: The case was settled and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim. The district court dismissed the portion of the complaint challenging the union’s status as an exclusive bargaining representative.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Alfred Sweet. He was represented by counsel from the Law Office of Mark W. Bucher and the Liberty Justice Center. The defendants were California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, and Acting Director of the California Department of State Hospitals Stephanie Clendenin. The union was represented by counsel from Altshuler Berzon LLP and the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. Becerra and Clendenin were represented by counsel from the office of the California attorney general.[1] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4]

    • February 27, 2019: The plaintiffs in Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians first filed their lawsuit on February 27, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiff initially filed a claim that challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status. The plaintiff requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, compensatory damages in the amount of all union fees collected since employment or in the amount deducted since Janus v. AFSCME, costs, and attorney’s fees. Count one of the complaint claimed that the union’s continued deduction of fees after the plaintiff withdrew his membership was a violation of his First Amendment rights. Count two of the complaint claimed that the state law granting the union status as an exclusive bargaining representative was unconstitutional due to a violation of his First Amendment rights.
    • April 22, 2019: The defendants filed an answer to the plaintiff’s complaint and a motion to dismiss the complaint.
    • April 22, 2019: The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
    • August 12, 2019: The plaintiff filed a response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
    • August 28, 2019: The district court granted the motion to dismiss count two of the plaintiff’s complaint.
    • September 18, 2019: An updated joint status report was filed by the plaintiff.
    • November 13, 2019: The plaintiff filed a joint stipulation of dismissal due to a settlement of the case.
    • November 15, 2019: The case was officially dismissed from the district court.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    This case was settled with regard to count one of the plaintiff’s complaint, and the plaintiff filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on November 13, 2019.[4] On August 28, 2019, Judge John Mendez signed an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss count two of the plaintiff’s complaint.[3] Judge Mendez wrote the following in the court's opinion:[3]

    “

    Even if the plaintiff's First Amendment claim were not foreclosed by Knight, it still would be meritless. Plaintiff does not allege that he is required to personally do or say anything to join or endorse CAPT or its speech. And neither support for CAPT or CAPT’s speech is attributed to the plaintiff in the sense that matters for First Amendment purposes, because reasonable people would not believe that all bargaining unit employees would necessarily agree with the exclusive representative or its positions. [5]

    		”
    —Judge Mendez

    Mendez was appointed by President George W. Bush (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.[6]

    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.[6]

    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."[6]

    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. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, “Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians et al,” accessed August 15, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians: Complaint Seeking Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Damages for Deprivation of First Amendment Rights,” February 27, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 PacerMonitor, "Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians: Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,” August 28, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, "Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians: Joint Stipulation of Dismissal,” November 13, 2019
    5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 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=Sweet_v._California_Association_of_Psychiatric_Technicians&oldid=9203517"