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

Brice v. California Faculty Association: Difference between revisions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-present" to "Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023")
 
Line 75: Line 75:


==See also==
==See also==
* [[Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-present]]  
* [[Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023]]  
* ''[[Janus v. AFSCME]]''
* ''[[Janus v. AFSCME]]''
* ''[[Abood v. Detroit Board of Education]]''
* ''[[Abood v. Detroit Board of Education]]''

Latest revision as of 03:17, 29 August 2023

Brice v. California Faculty Association
Case number: 21-480
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Nov. 30, 2018
District court decision:
Sept. 10, 2019
Appeals court decision:
April 28, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Dec. 6, 2021
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME.
Appeals court outcome
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari 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.

Brice v. California Faculty Association was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 28, 2021. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's September 2019 dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on December 6, 2021. In a suit filed in November 2018, the plaintiff sought refunds of union fees collected prior to the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. In Janus, the high court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support union activities.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was California professor William Brice. The defendant was the California Faculty Association.
  • The issue: Can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding agency fees paid prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which held that such fees are unconstitutional?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Josephine Staton presided over the district court proceedings. The three-judge appellate panel included Ninth Circuit Judges Sidney Thomas, Atsushi Wallace Tashima, and Barry Silverman.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was California professor William Brice. Brice was represented by attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The defendant was the California Faculty Association, represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

    • November 30, 2018: The plaintiff's complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
    • January 18, 2019: The defendant filed a motion for change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This motion was opposed by the plaintiff.
    • May 9, 2019: The court granted the defendant’s motion for a change of venue.
    • September 10, 2019: The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. This was followed by a judgment issued on September 13, 2019.
    • October 3, 2019: An appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    • January 3, 2020: The plaintiff submitted the opening brief for the appeal.
    • March 3, 2020: The defendant submitted the answering brief for the appeal.
    • March 24, 2020: The plaintiff submitted the reply brief for the appeal.
    • April 28, 2021: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • September 23, 2021: The plaintiff, along with public-sector workers in three other lawsuits, filed a joint petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • December 6, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On September 10, 2019, Judge Josephine Staton issued an order in favor of the defendant, granting the union’s motion to dismiss. Staton wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “

    Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Mot., Doc. 52.) The parties recognize that the issues presented by this case are indistinguishable from those the Court addressed in Babb v. California Teachers Association, 2019 WL 2022222 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2019). (See Mot. at 1-2; Opp. at 2, Doc. 53; Reply at 1, Doc. 55.) The Court Agrees.

    Accordingly, for the same reasons stated in the Court’s order in Babb, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. [9]

    		”
    —Judge Staton

    Staton was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On April 28, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Judges Sidney Thomas, Atsushi Wallace Tashima, and Barry Silverman—affirmed the district court's decision:[6]

    “

    The district court properly dismissed Brice’s action 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, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). [Danielson v. Inslee], 945 F.3d at 1097-99 (“[P]rivate parties may invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under42U.S.C.§1983, where they acted in direct reliance on then-binding Supreme Court precedent and presumptively-valid state law.”). [9]

    		”

    Thomas, Tashima, and Silverman were appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton (D).

    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. ↑ National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, "Cal State Professor Files Class Action Lawsuit to Reclaim Forced Union Fees under Janus Precedent," December 10, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, “Brice v. California Faculty Association,” accessed May 4, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, “William D. Brice v. California Faculty Association,” accessed May 4, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 PacerMonitor, “William Brice v. California Faculty Association,” accessed May 4, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 "Court Listener", “William Brice v. California Faculty Association: Civil Minutes - General,” September 10, 2019 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Justia, "WILLIAM BRICE V. CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION, No. 19-56164 (9th Cir. 2021)," April 28, 2021
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 21-480," accessed October 6, 2021
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order list: 595 U.S.," December 6, 2021
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    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=Brice_v._California_Faculty_Association&oldid=9203523"