This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
News

Labor/Employment

Oct. 30, 2019

Public unions need not return past years’ fees, judge rules

Public employee unions will not be forced to return years of “fair share fees” gathered from non-members, under a recent federal court ruling.

Public employee unions will not be forced to return years of "fair share fees" gathered from non-members, under a recent federal court ruling.

In his order issued Friday, U.S. District Court Judge William B. Shubb in Sacramento found the plaintiffs overstated the impact of Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 2018 DJDAR 6308 on their case. Previous case law, Shubb wrote, is sufficient to back up the union's good faith defense in Hamidi v. Service Employees International Union Local 1000, 14CV00319 (E.D. Cal., filed Jan. 31, 2014).

The plaintiffs began their case before Janus with a First Amendment challenge to the union's opt-out policy for non-members, which they said forced them to fund political speech they didn't agree with. This morphed into an attempt to recoup past fees post-Janus, but Shubb found it was enough that the unions complied with the law as it was understood at the time.

Shubb wrote the U.S. Supreme Court "did not specify" if plaintiffs could recoup past fees. But he added: "The controlling law in the Ninth Circuit, however, recognizes a good faith defense in shielding private defendants from liability," citing Clement v. City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir., 2008).

"Plaintiffs construct a five-element, good-faith test out of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Clement to argue that defendant's actions do not qualify for the defense," Shubb wrote. "No court, however, has read Clement so rigidly."

-- Malcolm Maclachlan

#354961

Malcolm Maclachlan

Daily Journal Staff Writer
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com