Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. State Dept. of Labor and Indus. Relations

• Decision Date: 04 November 1982
• Docket Number: AFL-CI,No. 81-4050,AFL-CIO,I,81-4050
• Citation: 691 F.2d 905
• Parties: 112 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2836, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 21,700 HAWAIIAN TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Hawaii corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Joshua C. Agsalud, Individually, and as Director, etc., Defendants-Appellees, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,Local 1357, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,Local 1260, and Hawaii State Federation of Labor,ntervenor-Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 905

691 F.2d 905

112 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2836, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 21,700

HAWAIIAN TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Hawaii corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS, Joshua C. Agsalud, Individually, and as

Director, etc., Defendants-Appellees,

and

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Local 1357, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,

AFL-CIO Local 1260, and Hawaii State Federation of Labor,

AFL-CIO, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

No. 81-4050.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 21, 1982.

Decided Nov. 4, 1982.

Jared H. Jossem, Torkildson, Katz, Jossem, & Loden, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank Yap, Jr., Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Honolulu, Hawaii, Marsha S. Berzon, Altshuler & Berzon, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

Before SCHROEDER, NELSON and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

NELSON, Circuit Judge:

Hawaiian Telephone Company (HAWTEL) appeals from the district court's dismissal of its 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976) action challenging the Hawaii unemployment tax scheme and the payment of state unemployment benefits to striking workers. The district court ruled that the State Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (1976), barred the action and that HAWTEL had a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy to challenge the tax in Hawaii state court.

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

Hawaii law permits strikers to collect unemployment compensation if their strike does not "substantially curtail" the productive operations of their employer. ¹ In 1974, a number of HAWTEL employees went on strike. When the strike ended, the Hawaii Department of Labor began an inquiry to determine whether the strike had "substantially curtailed" the company's productive operations. If the strike had not done so, the Department would have had to order retroactive unemployment compensation benefits paid to HAWTEL's striking employees. HAWTEL then would have had to replenish the state employment fund in an amount correlative to the benefits paid to the strikers by paying an increased rate of unemployment tax.

Before completion of the departmental inquiry, HAWTEL brought suit in federal district court seeking to enjoin the Hawaii Department of Labor from continuing the investigation. HAWTEL originally argued that certain aspects of the Hawaii unemployment compensation scheme interfered with employers' collective bargaining rights and, thus, were preempted by federal law. This issue has been resolved against HAWTEL in this court's prior opinion, Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. Hawaii Department of Labor, 614 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 984, 100 S.Ct. 2965, 64 L.Ed.2d 840 (1980). HAWTEL then filed a supplemental complaint, continuing the suit as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976), alleging various federal statutory and constitutional violations. The substance of the section 1983 complaint was that Hawaii's collection and administration of its unemployment tax and benefit scheme, which is partially federally funded, violated procedural due process, the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 49 (1976) et seq., and several other federal statutes implicated in Hawaii's unemployment compensation program. ²

HAWTEL sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the payment of unemployment benefits to its strikers, so that HAWTEL would not have to replenish the state unemployment fund for payments made.

The district court concluded that HAWTEL actually sought to challenge the "assessment, levy, or collection" of tax under Hawaii's unemployment compensation tax scheme. The court held that the State Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (1976), barred the action and that Hawaii provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy to challenge the tax in state court. ³ The action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Hawaii Department of Labor has since paid over one million dollars in retroactive unemployment compensation benefits to former HAWTEL strikers. HAWTEL unsuccessfully appealed those awards in a series of administrative proceedings.

ISSUES

The issues on appeal are:

I. Does HAWTEL have standing to sue?

II. Does the State Tax Injunction Act bar HAWTEL's action:

A. because it is a challenge to a state taxation scheme; or

B. because it is a challenge to a joint federal-state taxation scheme?

III. Is the State Tax Injunction Act inapplicable because HAWTEL has no plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in Hawaii courts?

I Standing

We must first determine whether HAWTEL has standing to maintain this action. ⁴ The determination depends on the characterization of HAWTEL's claim.

HAWTEL's action can be characterized in two ways: First, HAWTEL frames an action to challenge federal expenditures to Hawaii's unemployment fund. HAWTEL lacks standing to sue under such a theory. A taxpayer may challenge a federal expenditure made pursuant to the taxing and spending clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8), only if the taxpayer shows that the challenged expenditure exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 102-103, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1953, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). HAWTEL does not allege that allocation of federal funds to Hawaii under the Wagner-Peyser Act violates a specific constitutional limitation. Moreover, HAWTEL does not allege that the federal government has acted improperly or violated federal law in contributing funds to Hawaii's unemployment compensation fund. Rather, HAWTEL argues that Hawaii improperly administers its unemployment program, illegally grants benefits to strikers, and illegally collects unemployment taxes from employers. This allegation is not sufficient to confer standing on HAWTEL to challenge federal contributions to the state program.

Second, however, if characterized as an action challenging Hawaii's administration of the unemployment program, HAWTEL's suit establishes standing. A taxpayer may establish standing to challenge a state's administration of a partially federally funded program by alleging that the state's administration of the program causes the taxpayer a direct and identifiable injury. See Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979). See also Gomez v. Florida State Employment Service, 417 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1964). HAWTEL's complaint may be read to allege that Hawaii's administration of the state unemployment compensation benefit program directly affects and injures HAWTEL, because the amount of unemployment compensation tax that HAWTEL must pay into the state fund is directly determined by the amount of unemployment benefits the state awards to HAWTEL's employees. Therefore, HAWTEL has standing to challenge the Hawaii unemployment compensation-taxation scheme, because its unemployment tax liability will be directly affected.

Under this characterization, HAWTEL challenges the Hawaii unemployment benefit program, its administration, its funding, and HAWTEL's resulting tax liability. Accordingly, HAWTEL necessarily challenges the underlying "assessment, levy, or collection" of a state tax, to which the State Tax Injunction Act applies on its face.

II Application of the State Tax Injunction Act

A. State Taxation Schemes

HAWTEL argues that even if its action is characterized as a challenge to a state taxation scheme, the State Tax Injunction Act should not bar consideration, because suits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 come within an exception to the State Tax Injunction Act. The law in this circuit, however, is that section 1983 does not create an exception to the State Tax Injunction Act. Dillon v. Montana, 634 F.2d 463 (9th Cir. 1980); Kelly v. Springett, 527 F.2d 1090, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 1975). ⁵

HAWTEL argues that recent Supreme Court cases have overruled these Ninth Circuit decisions. Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bank, 450 U.S. 503, 101 S.Ct. 1221, 67 L.Ed.2d 464 (1980); Fair Assessment in Real Estate v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981). A review of those decisions, however, reveals that the Court has not permitted a section 1983 challenge to a state tax.

In Rosewell, plaintiffs filed suit under section 1983 in federal district court, challenging Illinois state income tax provisions on due process and equal protection grounds. The court determined only that Illinois provided a "plain, speedy, and efficient remedy" in state court, so that plaintiffs' suit was barred by the State Tax Injunction Act. The Supreme Court did not expressly consider the effect of section 1983 suits on the Tax Injunction Act. It did, however, refuse to let plaintiffs proceed under section 1983.

In Fair Assessment in Real Estate, Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. at 109-115, 102 S.Ct. at 182-5, taxpayers brought a section 1983 action in federal court alleging deprivation of equal protection and due process by unequal taxation of real property. They sought money damages. The Court again did not definitely resolve the relationship between section 1983 and the State Tax Injunction Act, but held that the principle of comity alone bars taxpayers' damages actions brought in federal courts under section 1983 to redress the allegedly unconstitutional administration of a state tax system.

The Supreme Court has not explicitly considered whether section 1983 might create an exception to the State Tax Injunction Act. In accordance with the existing law of this circuit, we hold that section 1983 is not an exception to the State Tax Injunction Act. We also note that McNary suggests that the principle of comity alone would bar this action. Id.

B. Federal-State Taxation Schemes

HAWTEL argues that although Ninth Circuit law prohibits a section 1983 exception to the State Tax Injunction Act, an exception should be allowed in the present case because Hawaii's...