Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wholean et al v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 et al
Case number: 20-605
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: June 13, 2018
District court decision:
April 29, 2019
Appeals court decision:
April 15, 2020
Supreme Court decision:
March 29, 2021
District court outcome
The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims for relief were moot and defendants did not act outside of a good faith reliance on existing law.
Appeals court outcome
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari review 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.

Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 15, 2020. The suit challenged the constitutionality of requiring non-union members to pay union fees as a condition of state employment. The Second Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court denied review of the case on March 29, 2021.[5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Kiernan J. Wholean and James A. Grillo. The defendants were Benjamin Barnes, Sandra Fae Brown-Brewton, CSEA SEIU Local 2001, and Robert Klee.
  • The issue: The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of requiring non-union members to pay union fees as a condition of state employment.
  • The presiding judges: Judge Warren Eginton presided over the case in the district court. A three-judge panel—Judges Jose Cabranes, Raymond Lohier, and Christina Reiss—presided over the case in the Second Circuit.[6]
  • The outcome: Both the appellate court and district court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that plaintiffs’ claims for relief were moot and defendants did not act outside of a good faith reliance on existing law.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Kiernan J. Wholean and James A. Grillo. They were represented by attorneys from the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. and the law offices of Law Offices Of Martha A. Dean. The defendants were Benjamin Barnes, Sandra Fae Brown-Brewton, CSEA SEIU Local 2001, and Robert Klee. They were represented by attorneys from the attorney general’s office, Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, and Altshuler Berzon LLP.

    The plaintiffs in Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 first filed their lawsuit on June 13, 2018, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of requiring non-union members to pay union fees as a condition of state employment and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.[1][2][5]

    • June 13, 2018: Plaintiffs file complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
    • October 1, 2018: Defendants file original motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
    • October 22, 2018: Plaintiffs’ representation files opposition of motion to dismiss.
    • November 29, 2018: Defendants re-file motion to dismiss on same grounds.
    • April 26, 2019: District court rules to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    • December 12, 2019: Case is heard before a panel of judges in the appellate court.
    • April 15, 2020: Second Circuit rules in favor of the defendants, affirming the district court’s decision.
    • March 29, 2021: Supreme Court denies certiorari review.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court

    On April 26, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.[1] Judge Warren Eginton wrote the following in the court's opinion:[3]

    “

    Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding the collection of agency fees from non-members are moot because (1) the Supreme Court has already determined the issue, and (2) defendants have demonstrated that collection of such fees has ceased and is unlikely to recur. Plaintiffs cannot assert a claim for prospective relief based on past unconstitutional conduct that has now ceased or based on a subjective belief that the unconstitutional conduct may reoccur. It is well established that a defendant cannot reasonably be expected to resume conduct that it acknowledges is contrary to binding precedent. ... Accordingly, the case or controversy regarding the constitutionality of the collection of agency fees no longer exists for this court to determine and remedy. Defendants’ motions to dismiss will be granted because plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot.

    [...]

    For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss [doc. 37 and 39] are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief are dismissed as moot; plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory damages or repayment of fees with interest are dismissed based on the affirmative defense of good faith reliance on existing law. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim for unjust enrichment, which is dismissed without prejudice.[7]

    		”


    Eginton joined the court in 1979 after being nominated by President Jimmy Carter.[8]


    Appeals court

    On April 15, 2020, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—Judges Jose Cabranes, Raymond Lohier, and Christina Reiss—affirmed the district court’s decision.[6] Reiss wrote the following in the court's opinion:[9]

    “

    We hold that a party who complied with directly controlling Supreme Court precedent in collecting fair-share fees cannot be held 18 liable for monetary damages under § 1983. In so holding, we do not write on a blank slate. The Supreme Court in Wyatt v. Cole ... observed that “principles of equality and fairness may suggest . . . that private citizens who rely unsuspectingly on state laws they did not create and may have no reason to believe are invalid should have some protection from liability, as do their government counterparts.” Although the Court ultimately held that private defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, the Court refused to “foreclose the possibility that private defendants faced with § 1983 2 liability . . . could be entitled to an affirmative defense based on good faith and/or probable cause.” ...

    [...]

    Since Wyatt, every Circuit Court of Appeals to have considered the question has held that a good-faith defense exists under § 1983 for private individuals and entities acting under the color of state law who comply with applicable law, including three circuits who have concluded that a good-faith defense is available to unions that relied on Abood and applicable state law in collecting fair-share fees prior to Janus. ...

    [...]

    In finding a good-faith defense, we note that nothing in Janus suggests that the Supreme Court intended its ruling to be retroactive. ...

    [...]

    Contrary to Appellants’ second argument on appeal, Appellees cannot reasonably be deemed to have forecasted whether, when, and how Abood might be overruled. Instead, they were entitled to rely on directly controlling Supreme Court precedent, and in good faith, they did so.

    [7]

    		”

    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.[10]

    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.[10]

    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."[10]

    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 PacerMonitor, "Wholean et al v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 et al," accessed September 24, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001," accessed September 24, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss," April 26, 2019
    4. ↑ National Right to Work, "Workers seek rulings ordering union bosses to refund dues taken in violation of landmark decision," accessed September 24, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-605," accessed June 27, 2021
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Reiss, a federal judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sat by designation.
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ The Hartford Courant, "Warren W. Eginton, Connecticut’s longest-sitting federal judge, dies at 95," October 8, 2019
    9. ↑ Justia, "Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001, No. 19-1563 (2d Cir. 2020)," April 15, 2020
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 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=Wholean_v._CSEA_SEIU_Local_2001&oldid=9203500"