California teachers sue over union dues

A proposed class of teachers is accusing California's teachers union and attorney general of illegally deducting union fees, violating the 2018 mandate by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The teachers, who are employees of public schools in Northern California, filed a federal lawsuit Monday alleging illegal collection of dues in the wake of Janus v. AFSCME, the 2018 Supreme Court decision that struck down compulsory fees from objecting public employees based on First Amendment protections. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 2018 DJDAR 6308 5-4.

The suit seeks relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that current union collection practices are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction enjoining the union from deducting wages and compensatory damages in the form of refunded dues. Mendez v. California Teachers Assoc., 19-CV-01290 (N.D. Cal., filed Mar. 11, 2019).

"Our goal is to force the unions to give advance notice, to honor union opt-outs that have been made by our class members, and to refund any illegally taken dues," said Krista L. Baughman, an attorney at Dhillon Law Group Inc. representing the plaintiffs. "We look at this lawsuit as a way to ensure when unions take money from teachers they need to be clear about what rights they're waiving."

Five named plaintiffs have signed on to the lawsuit, but according to the complaint, the proposed class could include tens of thousands of similarly situated individuals.

The named plaintiffs signed membership forms that outlined their dues requirements, but the complaint argues the contracts do not amount to "legally valid consent" to dues payments.

"Plaintiffs were not made aware, either by the language of the agreements, by the unions, or by their public employers, of their constitutional right to not fund union advocacy or the potential significance of the agreement as a waiver of this fundamental right," the complaint reads.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is also named as a defendant in the suit because of the enforcement of certain state statues authorizing school districts to automatically deduct union dues from teachers' wages, "even though plaintiffs have not clearly and affirmatively consented to the deductions by waiving their constitutional right to not fund union advocacy."

Neither the attorney general's office nor the California Teachers Association responded to requests for comment.

William B. Gould IV, a professor at Stanford Law School and former chairman for the National Labor Relations Board, commented the signed contracts could be a much stickier point than plaintiffs' attorneys may realize. According to Gould, case law, the National Labor Relations Act and Janus itself carefully distinguished between the obligation to pay dues and the voluntary authorization of dues payments. In the future, he said, union contracts for nonmembers may have to spell out the Janus protections more explicitly, but if plaintiffs signed forms prior to the Supreme Court's decision, they may have to adhere to the language of that contract.

"During the Janus litigation, the unions had said they'll be in terrible trouble and the court actually pointed to dues authorization procedures," Gould said. Janus is based on constitutional rights against being compelled to pay "but Janus says nothing about the employee who contracts to pay."

Baughman anticipates the union will use the contracts as a defense, but since Janus was based on constitutional grounds, the fundamental rights should be applied retroactively, she said. She also noted the plaintiffs resigned from the unions post-Janus.

"The goal is to enforce the First Amendment and protect workers rights and workers choices," Baughman said. "That's the impetus here."

The National Relations Board has made a suggestion it intends to make contracts more explicit with General Counsel Peter B. Robb issuing a memorandum in February outlining the board's policy on dues transparency.

"Employees subject to compulsory dues payment under the act have rights to be informed of their ability to be less than full union members, object to paying for union activities not germane to unions' representational duties, to revoke dues checkoff authorizations at certain times; and to receive the information necessary to make those choices," Robb wrote.