Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18, 20-2018
| Decision Date | 26 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-2018,20-2018 |
| Citation | 992 F.3d 950 |
| Parties | Brett HENDRICKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AFSCME COUNCIL 18; Michelle Lujan Grisham, in her official capacity as Governor of New Mexico; Hector Balderas, in his official capacity as Attorney General of New Mexico, Defendants - Appellees. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., Amicus Curiae. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Brian K. Kelsey (Reilly Stephens, with him on the briefs), Liberty Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois, for the Plaintiff - Appellant.
Eileen B. Goldsmith, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California (Scott A. Kronland, and Stefanie L. Wilson, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California; Shane C. Youtz, and Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, P.C., with her on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Defendant - Appellee AFSCME Council 18.
Lawrence M. Marcus (Alfred A. Park, with him on the brief), Park & Associates, L.L.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Defendants – Appellees Michelle Lujan Grisham and Hector Balderas.
Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr., National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, filed an amicus brief in support of Defendants – Appellees.
Before MATHESON, Circuit Judge, LUCERO, Senior Circuit Judge, and McHUGH, Circuit Judge.
Brett Hendrickson worked for the New Mexico Human Services Department ("HSD") and was a dues-paying member of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Council 18 ("AFSCME" or "Union"). He resigned his membership in 2018 after the Supreme Court decided Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018).
In Janus , the Court said the First Amendment right against compelled speech protects non-members of public sector unions from having to pay "agency" or "fair share" fees—fees that compensate the union for collective bargaining but not for partisan activity. Mr. Hendrickson contends that, under Janus , the Union cannot (1) retain dues that had been deducted from his paycheck, or (2) serve as his exclusive bargaining representative. The district court dismissed these claims.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm these dismissals but remand for amendment of the judgment.
Mr. Hendrickson signed membership agreements that permitted union dues to be deducted from his paycheck. After Janus , he terminated his membership. His dues deductions stopped shortly thereafter.
This timeline lists Mr. Hendrickson's actions regarding union membership and dues-deduction authorizations:
The 2017 member agreement stated:
Effective 4/7/17, I authorize AFSCME Council 18 as my exclusive bargaining representative, and I accept membership in AFSCME Council 18. I request and authorize the State of New Mexico to deduct union dues from my pay and transmit them to AFSCME Council 18. The amount of dues deduction shall be the amount approved by AFSCME's membership as set forth in the AFSCME constitution and certified in writing to my employer.
Suppl. App. at 18-19, 50.2
The agreement also created an "opt-out window." It limited the time period during which Mr. Hendrickson could terminate his dues deductions:
This authorization shall be revocable only during the first two weeks of every December, or such other time as provided in the applicable collective-bargaining agreement.
On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Janus . On August 9, Mr. Hendrickson emailed the State Personnel Office ("SPO"), asking, "Are we able to withdraw as full members now or do we have to wait for a certain amount of time?" Id. at 110; see also id. at 20.3 The SPO responded that "to cease payroll deductions for Membership dues, you must refer to the [collective bargaining agreement] regarding the request to cease payroll deductions." Id . at 110; see also id. at 20.4
On November 30, Mr. Hendrickson filed this suit. On December 6, the Union wrote to Mr. Hendrickson:
It has come to our attention through the filing of a lawsuit that you wish to resign your union membership and cancel your authorization for the deduction of membership dues. We have no prior record that you made any such request to the union. Nevertheless, we have processed your resignation from membership. Additionally, your dues authorization provides that it is revocable during the first two weeks of December each year. Accordingly, we are notifying your employer to stop further membership dues deductions.
On December 8, the Union received a faxed letter from Mr. Hendrickson stating he would like to "opt out of being a member." Id. at 61; see also id. at 21.
Despite this correspondence, dues continued to be deducted from Mr. Hendrickson's paycheck. On January 7, 2019, he emailed the SPO to request the deductions be stopped, attaching the Union's December 6 letter. The SPO responded that because it had not received his request during the opt-out window in the first two weeks of December, it would not stop deductions. Mr. Hendrickson then sent a request to the HSD to cease dues deductions.
On January 9, the SPO notified the Union that it had no record of Mr. Hendrickson's requesting termination of his dues deductions during the opt-out window. The Union responded, "requesting that [the SPO] cease dues deductions for Hendrickson immediately." Id. at 68; see also id. at 22.
Mr. Hendrickson's deductions stopped starting "with the second pay period in January." See id. at 22. In February, the Union refunded Mr. Hendrickson the dues deducted from his paychecks following the closure of the 2018 cancellation window.5
In addition to suing the Union, Mr. Hendrickson also named as defendants, in their official capacities, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas (the "New Mexico Defendants").
On March 15, 2019, Mr. Hendrickson filed a First Amended Complaint. He alleged two counts:
Suppl. App. at 8, 11 (emphasis omitted).
On Count 1, Mr. Hendrickson sought a declaration stating that "the Union and [the Governor] cannot force public employees to wait for an opt-out window to resign their union membership and to stop the deduction of dues from their paychecks." Id. at 10. He also sought a declaration that the New Mexico statute authorizing deductions and allowing an opt-out window "constitutes an unconstitutional violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association." See id.6 He further sought "damages in the amount of all dues deducted and remitted to the Union since he became a member [in 2004]," id. , or in the alternative, "since the Janus ruling [in 2018]," id. at 11.7
On Count 2, Mr. Hendrickson sought a declaration that the New Mexico statute providing for exclusive representation "constitute[s] an unconstitutional violation of his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association." See id. at 12.8
The Union and Mr. Hendrickson each filed motions for summary judgment. The New Mexico Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
The district court granted the Union's motion for summary judgment and the New Mexico Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It denied Mr. Hendrickson's motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the suit in its entirety. Mr. Hendrickson appeals.
We affirm the district court's dismissal of Count 1 because Mr. Hendrickson's request for prospective relief is moot, and his request for retrospective damages relief fails on the merits. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Count 2 because the Eleventh Amendment bars his claim against the New Mexico Defendants, and the claim against the Union fails on the merits.
"We review de novo the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal." Bixler v. Foster , 596 F.3d 751, 756 (10th Cir. 2010). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Doe v. City of Albuquerque , 667 F.3d 1111, 1118 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ).
"We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court." Helm v. Kansas , 656 F.3d 1277, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011). "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "In conducting the analysis, we view all facts and evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment." Morris v. City of Colo. Springs , 666 F.3d 654, 660 (10th Cir. 2012) (alterations and quotation omitted).
Mr. Hendrickson objects to the deduction of union...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rio Grande Found. v. Oliver
..., 415 U.S. 724, 737 n.8, 94 S.Ct. 1274, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). We generally disfavor this argument. See Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 , 992 F.3d 950, 958 n.10 (10th Cir. 2021) ("[O]ur cases prevent us from applying the mootness exception based on a risk to others." (quotation marks omitt......
-
Todd v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps.
...Union and paying nothing—had been available to him between 2014 and June 2018 "does not establish coercion." Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 , 992 F.3d 950, 962 (10th Cir. 2021) (rejecting argument that plaintiff faced a "false dichotomy" of paying union dues or agency fees, as regretting ......
-
Smith v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union
...F. Supp. 3d 602, 607-08 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (alteration in original), aff'd, Oliver, 830 F. App'x 76 ; see also Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18, 992 F.3d 950, 961 (10th Cir. 2021) (noting that "[a] change in the law does not retroactively render [union] agreements void or voidable"); Ehrheart ......
-
Barlow v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union
...F. Supp. 3d 602, 607-08 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (alteration in original), aff'd, Oliver, 830 F. App'x 76 ; see also Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18, 992 F.3d 950, 961 (10th Cir. 2021) (noting that "[a] change in the law does not retroactively render [union] agreements void or voidable"); Ehrheart ......