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

Wilford v. National Education Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wilford v. National Education Association
Case number: 19-55712
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: July 2, 2018
District court decision:
May 8, 2019
Appeals court decision:
Jan. 26, 2022
District court outcome
Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Appeals court outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

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.

Wilford v. National Education Association was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 26, 2022. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's May 2019 dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs filed their original complaint in the district court on July 2, 2018, seeking repayment of union agency fees following the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME.[1][2][3][4][5][6]


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Scott Wilford, Bonnie Hayhurst, Rebecca Friedrichs, Michael Monge, Harlan Elrich, Jelena Figueroa, and Gene Gray. The defendants were the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and others. To view a full list of defendants, click here.
  • The issue: The plaintiffs sought repayment of union agency fees following Janus v. AFSCME.
  • The presiding judges: Judge Josephine Staton presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Senior Judges Barry Silverman and Richard Clifton and Judge Andrew Hurwitz—presided over the case in the Ninth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court ruling.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Scott Wilford, Bonnie Hayhurst, Rebecca Friedrichs, Michael Monge, Harlan Elrich, Jelena Figueroa, and Gene Gray. They were represented by attorneys from Bursch Law PLLC and Clark Hill LLP. The defendants were the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and others. To view a full list of defendants, click here. Attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP represented the defendents.[1][2]

    The plaintiffs in first filed their lawsuit on July 2, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs sought repayment of union agency fees following the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME.[1][2][3][4]

    • July 2, 2018: The plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint seeking damages and declaratory judgment.
    • October 8, 2018: The plaintiffs filed an amended class-action complaint.
    • November 15, 2018: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims due to lack of jurisdiction.
    • December 21, 2018: The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.
    • March 29, 2019: Hearings were held regarding the defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
    • May 8, 2019: Judge Josephine Staton ruled in favor of the defendants and granted their motion to dismiss the case. The judgment was entered on May 22, 2019.
    • January 26, 2022: A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • February 9, 2022: The plaintiffs filed a petition for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.
    • April 19, 2022: The panel voted to deny the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing. No other judge requested to vote on an en banc rehearing.
    • June 23, 2022: The plaintiffs filed an application to the U.S. Supreme Court to extend the time to file an appeal from July 18, 2022, to September 16, 2022.
    • June 28, 2022: Justice Elena Kagan granted the extension.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On May 8, 2019, Judge Josephine Staton issued an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. Staton wrote:[7]

    “

    This Court has twice held that claims for prospective relief to prevent the collection of agency fees post-Janus are moot. See Yohn v. California Teachers Ass’n ... Babb v. California Teachers Ass’n... (dismissing claims for prospective relief against state defendants as moot). The claims for prospective relief in Wilford, Babb, Matthews, and Martin are indistinguishable, and the Union Defendants have again submitted declarations attesting to their commitment to no longer enforce California Government Code § 3546 and to fully comply with Janus. Indeed, the Martin Plaintiffs admit that their claims for prospective relief are moot 'in light of the [Union Defendants’] demonstrated compliance with Janus and their iron-clad promise to comply with Janus going forward.' ... Further, every other district court to consider this issue has found claims for prospective relief moot after Janus. See, e.g., Cook v. Brown ... Carey v. Inslee ... Danielson v. Inslee ...

    Accordingly, the Union Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief are GRANTED. ...

    On indistinguishable facts, every district court to consider whether unions that collected agency fees prior to Janus have a good-faith defense to § 1983 liability have answered in the affirmative. ... The Court finds these courts’ reasoning persuasive and applicable here.

    The Union Defendants argue that they collected agency fees from Plaintiffs 'at a time when California [statutes] and controlling U.S. precedent expressly allowed the collection of such fees.' ... Indeed, this Court has acknowledged that 'prior to Janus, [the Unions] were merely following the 40-year-precedent of Abood.' ...

    ... [T]he Court rejects all of Plaintiffs’ arguments against application of the good-faith defense. The Court agrees with every other district court to have decided this question and concludes that '[t]he good faith defense should apply here as a matter of law.' ... Thus, the Babb, Wilford, and Martin Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.[8]

    		”

    On May 22, 2019, Staton entered the judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.[9]

    Staton joined the court in 2010 after being appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On January 26, 2022, a three-judge panel—Senior Judges Barry Silverman and Richard Clifton and Judge Andrew Hurwitz—affirmed Staton's ruling. The court's opinion said:[6]

    “

    The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claim for retrospective monetary relief because a public sector union can, as a matter of law, 'invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it collected' prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31. ...

    The district court properly dismissed as moot plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief because defendants stopped deducting and receiving agency fees after the Supreme Court's decision in Janus disallowed the deduction or receipt of agency fees in their collective bargaining agreements, stopped enforcing statutes permitting the deduction of agency fees, and demonstrated that they are unlikely to rescind the policy changes. ...

    The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' state law claims because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim.[8]

    		”

    President Bill Clinton (D) appointed Silverman to the court, President George W. Bush (R) appointed Clifton, and President Barack Obama (D) appointed Hurwitz.

    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

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Pacer Monitor, "Scott Wilford et al v. National Education Association of the United States et al," accessed September 15, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Pacer Monitor, "Scott Wilford, et al v. National Education Association, et al," accessed September 15, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Education Week, "After Janus Ruling, Teachers Are Suing for Return of Fees They've Paid Their Unions," July 3, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 CourtListener, "Plaintiffs' Class-Action Complaint," July 2, 2018
    5. ↑ Casetext, "Judgment," May 22, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Casetext, "Wilford v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n of United States," January 26, 2022
    7. ↑ CourtListener, "Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss," May 8, 2019
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Casetext, "Judgment," May 22, 2019
    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=Wilford_v._National_Education_Association&oldid=9203473"