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

Schumaker v. Inslee: Difference between revisions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replacement - "}} '''''" to "}} {{Public-sector labor lawsuits mothball}} '''''")
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 67: Line 67:


==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

Schumacher et al v Inslee et al
Case number: 3:18-cv-05535
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: July 03, 2018
District court decision: July 22, 2020
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed, with prejudice, stating that nothing about the plaintiffs’ current status as non-dues paying employees subjects them to the possibility of the injuries of which they complain.

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.

Schumacher et al v Inslee et al was decided by Judge Marsha Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 22, 2020. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice, stating the plaintiffs failed to establish “injury in fact.” The plaintiffs alleged that Service Employees International Union 775 (SEIU 775) deducted union dues from state-subsidized home care workers’ wages absent their clear, prior, affirmative consent.[1][2][3]


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Robb Israel, Surena Israel, Linda Schumacher, and Miranda Thorpe. The defendants were Jay Inslee (D), Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775NW, and Cheryl Strange.
  • The issue: The plaintiffs, a group of individual providers, never elected to join SEIU 775, but union dues were deducted from their paycheck regardless. The plaintiffs sought damages and attorney fees.
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Marsha Pechman presided over the case. She joined the court in 1999 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton (D).
  • The outcome: The district court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed, with prejudice, stating that the plaintiffs failed to establish “injury in fact.”

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Robb Israel, Surena Israel, Linda Schumacher, and Miranda Thorpe. They were represented by attorneys from the Freedom Foundation. The defendants were Jay Inslee (D), Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775NW, and Cheryl Strange. They were represented by attorneys from the Washington State Attorney General’s office, Altshuler Berzon LLP, and Frank Freed Subit & Thomas.[2][3][1]

    The plaintiffs in Schumacher et al v Inslee et al first filed their lawsuit on July 3, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The state of Washington certified SEIU 775 to represent providers in collective bargaining, and individual providers are labeled as public employees for the reason of collective bargaining. The plaintiffs never willingly joined SEIU as union members, but dues were deducted from their paycheck anyway. The plaintiffs sought damages since they never elected to join the union but had dues deducted anyway.[2][1]

    • July 3, 2018: Plaintiffs file a complaint against Gov. Jay Inslee (D) seeking damages, alleging SEIU 775 deducted dues without their consent.
    • October 23, 2018: A stay was entered on October 23, 2018, to permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to opt out of a settlement reached in Hoffman (which was later re-named Routh v. Inslee).
    • January 27, 2020: Plaintiffs notified court of their decision to opt out of the Routh settlement.
    • March 6, 2020: A second amended complaint was filed (with defendants’ consent).
    • July 22, 2020: Judge dismisses plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    Judge Marsha Pechman dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to both the terminated opt-out system and the current affirmative consent system, with prejudice. The plaintiffs failed to establish “injury in fact,” which is a prerequisite to Article III standing to sue.[2][3][1]


    On July 22, 2020, Judge Marsha Pechman dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. Judge Marsha Pechman wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ Having failed to establish “injury in fact,” a prerequisite to Article III standing to sue,

    Plaintiffs will not be permitted to pursue claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as regards Defendant SEIU 775’s dues deduction process. The union’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing that portion of Plaintiffs’ claim (as set forth in ¶¶ 80-85 of the Second Amended Complaint) is GRANTED. [4]

    		”
    —Judge Marsha Pechman

    Judge Marsha Pechman joined the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in 1999 after being nominated 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.[5]

    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.[5]

    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."[5]

    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 1.3 Pacer Monitor, "Schumacher et al v Inslee et al," accessed September 21, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Pacer Monitor, "ORDER ON SEIU 775’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT," accessed September 3, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Freedom Foundation, "Lawsuit targets dues illegally confiscated from non-consenting care providers," accessed September 3, 2020
    4. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 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=Schumaker_v._Inslee&oldid=9203544"