Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees
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]
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
Click show to view a list of cases with links to our in-depth coverage.
See also
- Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023
- Janus v. AFSCME
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
External links
Case documents
Trial Court
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, "Complaint seeking declaratory relief and damages for deprivation of First Amendment rights," May 24, 2019
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, "Order re motions for summary judgment," October 29, 2020
Appeals court
Supreme Court
Footnotes
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 21-612," accessed December 3, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 PacerMonitor, "Wolf v. Shaw et al," accessed September 18, 2020
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Issac Wolf v. Anne Shaw, et al," accessed May 23, 2021
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, "Order," September 16, 2021
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 PacerMonitor, "Complaint seeking declaratory relief and damages for deprivation of First Amendment rights," May 24, 2019
- ↑ PacerMonitor, "Order re motions for summary judgment," October 29, 2020
- ↑ 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
|