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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more