On September 9, 2020, the Federal District Court in
the Southern District of California granted California Statewide Law
Enforcement Association’s (“CSLEA”) and the State’s motion to dismiss CSLEA members’
complaint. Some CSLEA members brought the lawsuit alleging CSLEA and the State
violated their First Amendment rights by (1) refusing to accept their
resignation from union membership, (2) continuing to deduct union dues from
their paychecks, and (3) forcing them to join the union by threatening fees.
The CSLEA members bringing the claim were lifeguards
employed by the Department of Parks and Recreation. When they joined CSLEA,
their membership application included a provision authorizing dues deductions
from their wages and limitations on the time period in which they could
withdraw membership. According to their memorandum of understanding (“MOU”),
membership had to be withdrawn during the thirty days before expiration of the
MOU. When the claimants joined CSLEA, agency fees or “fair share” fees from
non-members were still allowed.
In 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Janus
v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) and held that the
deduction of agency fees from non-members of a union violated the nonmembers’
First Amendment rights absent actual consent.
The claimants decided to withdraw their union membership based on that
decision. However, their withdrawal was denied because it was not within the
permitted withdrawal window and dues deductions continued. According to their
MOU, membership had to be withdrawn during the thirty days before expiration of
the MOU.
The court considered Janus and determined that
First Amendment concerns were not implicated because the claimants had affirmatively consented to union
membership. Janus does not apply to voluntary agreements. Rather, Janus specifically held that nonmembers
cannot be required to pay union fees because it forces nonmembers to subsidize
private speech they never agreed to. However, these lifeguards were union
members because they agreed to join the union, consented to the deductions and
consented to the membership withdrawal limitation. Therefore, their claim was invalid
and the federal district court dismissed their claim.
Subsequently, the ninth Circuit issued a decision which should resolve similar claims throughout the state of California. On September 16, 20202, the Ninth Circuit upheld members' agreements that authorized the state to deduct dues and remit them to the union, which were irrevocable for one year. Belgau v. Inslee --F.3d--, 2020 WL 5541390 (9th
Cir. 2020) The Court explained that the state did not violate state employees' First Amendment
rights by continuing to deduct union dues until the end of the one-year period from employees' paychecks after they
revoked their union memberships. The Court emphasized the difference between a
nonmember being compelled to pay versus a member who affirmatively signed up to
pay by agreeing to be a union member. Similarly, the claimants in Belgau were
Washington State employees who opted into union membership and withdrew membership
after Janus was decided. Although their withdrawal was approved, the union
continued deducting dues for a year according to a provision of their
collective bargaining agreement.
In Belgau¸ the
Ninth Circuit noted that rather than being a state action, the deduction of
dues was a private agreement between the consenting members and the union.
Furthermore, by the time the claim reached the Ninth Circuit, the claim was
moot. Deductions stopped after one year, as listed in the agreement. The state employees argued that those
deductions violated the First Amendment as held in Janus because they no
longer consented to pay dues. But the Court noted that “the First Amendment
does not support Employee’s right to renege on their promise to join and
support the union.” The union is not a state actor under Section 1983. Based on
their voluntary consent, the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal.
