Yohn v. California Teachers Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Yohn v. California Teachers Association
Case number: 8:17-cv-00202
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: February 6, 2017
District court decision: September 28, 2018
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.

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.

Yohn v. California Teachers Association was terminated by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on September 28, 2018. The court dismissed the plaintiffs claims with prejudice. On February 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their original complaint, challenging the constitutionality of mandatory payment of union dues and fees from teachers regardless of whether or not they remain in the union.[1][2][3][4][5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Ryan Yohn, Stacy Vehrs, Robert Vehrs, Michelle Raley, Allen Osborn, Darren Miller, George Meilahn, Bruce Aster, and the Association of American Educators. The defendants were the California Teachers Association, et al.
  • The issue: The plaintiffs were chalening the constitutionality of California’s agency shop laws which require mandatory payment of union dues and fees, regardless of employee’s union membership status.
  • The presiding judge(s):Judge Josephine Staton. Staton was nominated by President Barack Obama on February 4, 2010 and confirmed by the Senate June 21, 2010.
  • The outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice, ruling in favor of the defendants on September 28, 2018.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Ryan Yohn, Stacy Vehrs, Robert Vehrs, Michelle Raley, Allen Osborn, Darren Miller, George Meilahn, Bruce Aster, and the Association of American Educators. They were represented by attorneys from Jones Day and the Center For Individual Rights. The defendants were the California Teachers Association, et al. They were represented by attorneys from the California Attorney General’s Office, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Lozano Smith, Best Best And Kreiger LLP, and Fagen Friedman And Fulfrost LLP.[1][2][3][4][5]

    The plaintiffs in Yohn v. California Teachers Association first filed their lawsuit on February 6, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of California’s agency shop laws which require mandatory payment of union dues and fees, regardless of employee’s union membership status.[1][4][5]

    • February 6, 2017: Plaintiffs file complaint against defednats.
    • April 28, 2017: Oral arguments heard regarding plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
    • September 7, 2017: Defendants file a motion for protective order.
    • September 8, 2017: Hearing held reviewing defendants’ motion for a protective order. Court denies defendants motion.
    • November 13, 2017: Court grants motion for stay of hearings pending the result in Janus v. AFSCME.
    • July 23, 2018: Plaintiffs file motion for summary judgment and defendants file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    • August 31, 2018: Plaintiffs file opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. and defendants file opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
    • September 28, 2018: Court grants defendants motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    The court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.[5]

    On September 28, 2018, Judge Josephine Staton dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. Judge Staton wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ Having considered the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, and having taken the matter under submission, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss without prejudice and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as moot.

    [6]

    		”
    —Judge Josephine Staton

    Staton was nominated by President Barack Obama on February 4, 2010 and confirmed by the Senate June 21, 2010.

    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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Pacer Monitor, "Ryan Yohn et al v. California Teachers Association et al," accessed September 17, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Courthouse News, "California Teachers Reboot Attack on Union," accessed September 17, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Center for Individual Rights, "Yohn v. California Teachers Association," accessed September 17, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Pacer Monitor, "Complaint," accessed September 17, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Pacer Monitor, "(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Docs. 184, 185); AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT (Doc. 186)," accessed September 17, 2020
    6. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    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=Yohn_v._California_Teachers_Association&oldid=9203471"