Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees
Case number: 21-612
Status: Pending before the U.S. Supreme Court
Important dates
Filed: May 24, 2019
District court decision:
Oct. 29, 2020
Appeals court decision:
Sept. 16, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Pending
District court outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed.
Appeals court outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Pending

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.

Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees is a case pending appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.[1] On September 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's October 2020 dismissal of the lawsuit.[2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff is Isaac Wolf. The defendants are University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119; Anne Shaw, secretary and chief of staff to the University of California Regents; the Public Employment Relations Board; and University of California President Janet Napolitano.
  • The issue: The plaintiff challenged the union’s opt-out window and continued deduction of dues despite the plaintiff’s status as a non-union member.
  • The presiding judges: Judge William Alsup presided over the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A three-judge appellate panel included Ninth Circuit Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Paul Watford, and Kenneth Kiyul Lee.
  • The outcome: This lawsuit is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff is Isaac Wolf. He is represented by attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center. The defendants are University Professional and Technical Employees, Communications Workers of America Local 9119; Anne Shaw, secretary and chief of staff to the University of California Regents; the Public Employment Relations Board; and University of California President Janet Napolitano. They are represented by attorneys from the office of the state attorney general, Hanson Bridgett LLP, and Leonard Carder, LLP.[2]

    The plaintiff in Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees first filed suit on May 24, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff challenged the union’s opt-out window and continued deduction of dues despite the plaintiff’s wishes to withdraw from union membership.[2][5]

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[2][3][5][4]

    • May 24, 2019: Plaintiff filed complaint against defendants.
    • July 26, 2019: Defendants filed motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaints.
    • August 9, 2019: Plaintiffs filed amended complaint seeking damages from defendants.
    • August 23, 2019: Defendants filed motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaints filed on August 9.
    • September 26, 2019: Hearings held before Judge William Alsup.
    • July 30, 2020: Both plaintiffs and defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
    • October 29, 2020: Judge William Alsup dismissed the plaintiff's claims.
    • November 30, 2020: Plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • September 16, 2021: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On October 29, 2020, Judge William Alsup dismissed the plaintiff's claims. Alsup wrote, "Ultimately, Wolf is bound by his complaint, which does not fairly contain a mutual mistake of law claim. The appropriate avenue would have been to seek leave to file an amended complaint before the close of discovery and before summary judgment. Slinking in a new claim in his summary judgment motion cannot serve as a substitute to amending his complaint."[6]

    Appellate court decision

    On September 16, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Paul Watford, and Kenneth Kiyul Lee —affirmed the district court's decision.[4]

    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

    Appeals court

    Supreme Court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 21-612," accessed December 3, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 PacerMonitor, "Wolf v. Shaw et al," accessed September 18, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Issac Wolf v. Anne Shaw, et al," accessed May 23, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, "Order," September 16, 2021
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 PacerMonitor, "Complaint seeking declaratory relief and damages for deprivation of First Amendment rights," May 24, 2019
    6. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Order re motions for summary judgment," October 29, 2020
    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=Wolf_v._University_Professional_%26_Technical_Employees&oldid=9203440"