Facts

In late 2004, California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA), and several of its officials plaintiffs, protested against Proposition 75, which sought to prohibit public employee labor organizations from using member dues or fees for political contributions, unless each member provided prior written consent annually. In November 2005, Proposition 75 was defeated in the special election. California then required CCPOA's members to complete standardized forms when they took leave, and required those on long-term leave to complete the State's annual training requirements. Neither procedure had previously been required.

Although neither proposed reform was ever implemented, the union then sued the state of California, the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA), the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and three of CDCR's officials, defendants. Plaintiff sought an injunction preventing the State from requiring CCPOA members from complying with the reforms, claiming that they violated CCPOA's members rights 1) under the California Constitution and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and 2) under the U.S. Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The State demurred to the entire complaint, which was sustained as to the State claims on the grounds that the CCPOA did not comply with the California Tort Claims Act. The State demurred to the entire action, and the court granted its demurrer regarding the State claims. The State then moved for summary judgment on the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim.

The union did not dismiss the three State officials.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff argued that the state's requirement for CCPOA's members to fill in standardized forms and comply with training requirements, was the state's way of retaliating for the defeat of Proposition 75. The plaintiff also argued the state's actions had a chilling effect on its members' constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association under the U.S. and California Constitutions.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that: (1) the State and its officials, in their official capacities, were absolutely immune under Section 1983; (2) the CCPOA suffered no injury because the proposed reforms were never implemented; (3) there was no causal relationship to establish retaliation because the proposed reforms were proposed long before Proposition 75 was ever put on the ballot; (4) there were objective, non-retaliatory reasons for proposing the reforms; and (5) there was no evidence to overcome the qualified immunity of the State's officials in their individual capacities.

Damages

The CCPOA sought to enjoin the State from denying its members the right to freedom of association and protected union activity by (1) requiring CCPOA's members to fill in the standardized forms when taking leave, and (2) by requiring those on long-term leave to comply with the State's annual training requirements. It also sought an injunction against the State from retaliating or otherwise discriminating against its members for engaging in protected activity. Finally, the CCPOA sought an unspecified amount of damages, attorney fees, costs, and punitive damages totaling $50,000 against each of the three state officials.

Result

Judge Patrick J. Mahoney held that to prevail on a Section 1983 claim, the CCPOA had to establish a violation of constitutional rights. Although the court doubted that the proposed reforms could ever amount to a "constitutional violation," even if implemented, it granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis that no rights were violated, since the proposed reforms were never implemented.

Other Information

The state filed an unsuccessful motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to C.C.P. section 1038 against defendants because the state obtained a summary judgment against the union, and the union pursued its action without reasonable cause or good faith. The court denied the motion on the grounds that CCP Section 1038 did not apply to a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action. The State will file a motion for attorneys fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, once judgment is entered against defendants.