Guppy v. City of Los Angeles: 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 58: Line 58:


==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 03:16, 29 August 2023

Guppy v. City of Los Angeles
Case number: 8:18-cv-01360
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: August 3, 2018
District court decision: August 30, 2019
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
This case resulted in a partial settlement. In light of the settlement, the public-sector union involved was not required to pay attorney fees and costs related to the lawsuit.

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.

Guppy v. City of Los Angeles was dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 30, 2019. After Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiff filed an initial complaint that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and agency fee collection, as well as requests for a refund of all agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees. In Janus, the high court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support unions' non-political activities. A settlement agreement had previously been reached between the plaintiff and union defendants, which did not address the plaintiff’s claim to attorney fees and costs. The court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees and costs, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Derek Guppy. The defendants were the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 45, Los Angeles Controller Ron Galperin (D), and the California Attorney General.
  • 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 judge(s): Judge James Selna presided over the district court proceedings. Judge Selna was appointed by President George W. Bush (R).
  • The outcome: This lawsuit resulted in a partial settlement involving a refund of agency fees, however, after the settlement, the court dismissed the amended complaint and ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees or costs after the settlement took place.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Derek Guppy. He was represented by counsel from the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc and Gundersen Law. The defendants were the city of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 45, Los Angeles Controller Ron Galperin (D), and the California Attorney General. The City of Los Angeles was represented by the Los Angeles City Attorney and counsel from the office of the California Attorney General.[1] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2]

    • August 3, 2018: The plaintiffs in Guppy v. City of Los Angeles first filed their lawsuit on August 3, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. After Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiff filed an initial complaint that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and agency fee collection, as well as requests for a refund of all agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees.
    • November 5, 2018: A scheduling conference was held at which it was stated the plaintiff and the union defendants had reached a settlement regarding all issues except the plaintiff’s claim to attorney fees. The settlement included a change to the union membership requirements. The case was stayed for 60 days to explore settlement options. The plaintiff and the union defendants were required to file a joint report so that it could be determined if the plaintiff had “prevailed.”
    • June 5, 2019: The Court granted in part the city defendants’ motion to dismiss. “Specifically, the Court denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that the case was moot, id. at 8–9, granted the motion to dismiss the Controller, id. at 10, denied the motion to dismiss the first claim, id. at 12, and granted the motion to dismiss as to the Hudson violations with leave to amend, id. at 13.”[2]
    • August 30, 2019: The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, stating that the case was moot.
    • September 20, 2019: The court issued a ruling that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive attorney fees and costs after the settlement agreement.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    On September 20, 2019, Judge James Selna dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint and denied costs and attorney’s fees.[2] Judge Selna wrote the following in the court's opinion:[2]

    “

    Guppy argues that his “efforts pursuing this matter before this Court resulted in both a full refund (plus interest) of the fees seized from his wages, as well as expunction of the offending forced-unionism clause,” so “it is beyond serious question that [he] has achieved a substantial victory.” (Docket No. 52 at 12.) He adds that his efforts benefitted “others in the bargaining unit,” “by expunging the forced-unionism provision of the MOU.” (Id. at 12-13.)

    The Court disagrees. The Supreme Court rejected the premise that such “but-for” causation is sufficient to confer prevailing party status on a plaintiff. See Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 605. In that case, the Supreme Court explained that “[a] defendant’s voluntary change in conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change.” Id., emphasis added.

    As in Lamberty v. Connecticut State Police Union, et al., 2019 WL 4233502, at *9 (D. Conn. Sept. 6, 2019), this Court did not provide Guppy “with an enforceable judgment on the merits or court-ordered consent decree,” “did not retain jurisdiction to enforce a private settlement agreement,” “[n]or did it render a settlement operative through the Court’s review and approval.” (Internal citations omitted). In holding that the case is moot, the Court did nothing. Thus, there is no “judicial imprimatur” on the reimbursements Guppy received. [3]

    		”
    —Judge Selna

    Judge Selna was appointed by President George W. Bush (R).

    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.[4]

    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.[4]

    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."[4]

    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 PacerMonitor, “Derek A. Guppy v. City of Los Angeles et al,” accessed June 7, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 PacerMonitor, “Derek A. Guppy v. City of Los Angeles et al: Civil Minutes - General,” September 20, 2019
    3. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 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=Guppy_v._City_of_Los_Angeles&oldid=9203480"