Skip to main content

Updated: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, United States Supreme Court


Earlier this year, I wrote about a case pending before the United States Supreme Court that dealt with agency fees and whether public sector unions could require all employees in the bargaining unit to pay the fees.  At the time, oral arguments had just been heard in which the petitioners (Friedrichs, et al.) argued that the Court's 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overturned.  The Court had ruled in Abood that workers do not have to join unions or fund a union's political activities.  However, these workers can be compelled to pay for collective bargaining and other costs of contract administration (commonly referred to as "agency fees").

At the end of last month, the Court issued its long awaited opinion on the matter and came back with a 4 - 4 tie...by way of a one page opinion, no less.  That 4 - 4 decision resulted in the Ninth Circuit's ruling remaining in place, which meant that California (and other states in that circuit) could continue to require nonunion members to pay agency fees.  This ruling was one of the major decisions to be handed down that turned, in essence, upon only having 8 justices on the Court to make a ruling following Justice Scalia's death.

On April 8, the petitioners filed a motion for rehearing and argued that the issues presented in the case were too important to leave unsettled (by way of the Court's 4 - 4 ruling) and would be guaranteed to recur in the absence of a definitive ruling from the Court.  Accordingly, the petitioners asked for (in their words, an "extraordinarily rare") rehearing after a replacement Justice is appointed to the Court to fill the spot left vacant by Justice Scalia.  

It goes without saying that the Supreme Court vacancy is a hot button issue as of late.  With Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia having been nominated by President Obama to fill the vacancy and Republicans in Congress vowing not to hold confirmation hearings, this is an issue that could drag out for many, many months.  Whether the petitioners will obtain a rehearing is difficult to say...but based upon their arguments, it an issue that I think is worth a second look by a full United States Supreme Court.


A copy of the United States Supreme Court's 4 - 4 opinion:  www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-915_1bn2.pdf

A copy of the motion for rehearing can be found here:  https://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/friedrichs_v_cta_pet_rehearing.pdf

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

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

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more