Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, United States Supreme Court


Note, a couple of readers have pointed me to a few recent labor & employment law updates lately.  Last week, I posted an article that a reader mentioned to me in regard to the Eugenie Bouchard Unsafe Work Environment issue.  Yesterday, I had another regular reader of the blog point this Supreme Court case out to me.  Many thanks!


As with many labor and employment law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts:  In California, every year, public school teachers are compelled to make hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to California Teachers Association and their local affiliates.  These payments are mandatory for every teacher working in an agency shop school.  (An agency shop is an arrangement where the employer can hire anyone regardless of their union membership status.  Employees are not required to join a union.  However, all non-union employees must pay an "agency fee" to the union to cover the costs of collective bargaining.).

There is wide disagreement among states whether these "agency fees" are valid, with 23 states currently forcing non-union government workers to pay these fees, even though these workers have no interest in joining a union.

The Main Issue:  Is it a violation of a public employee's First Amendment rights to require them to pay "agency fees", if they are not members of the union?

Current Status:  On June 30, 2015, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition to hear the case.  Briefs have subsequently been filed by all parties.

Yesterday, January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case.  At oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to hint at the direction the Court may lean when he expressed concern that some teachers are being forced to financially support their union's position on merit pay and teacher tenure, even though these teachers might have misgivings about doing so.

Looking Ahead:  This is one of the most intriguing cases that is currently pending in any court around the country.  There is prior Supreme Court precedent that supporters of these "agency fees" point to as evidence that there is no First Amendment violation.  In that case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court held back in 1977 that represented workers may be required to pay their share of union bargaining and contract enforcement.  As a result, the argument follows that "agency fees" are appropriate when unions are required to fairly represent all workers in the bargaining unit, whether or not they become members of the union.

However, opponents of these "agency fees" have filed numerous briefs with the Supreme Court expressing their firm belief that Abood should be invalidated and these forced fees should no longer be mandatory for non-union government workers.  Based upon the this First Amendment argument and the direction oral arguments took yesterday, I think it might prove to be enough to invalidate these "agency fees".

Stay tuned.  This will be an interesting one to watch unfold.


For additional information, the SCOTUS Blog has some good links to filings in this case:  http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more