Wagner v. Univ. of Wash.
| Decision Date | 11 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00091-BJR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | CHARLENE WAGNER Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a public university; ANA MARI CAUCE, President; MINDY KORNBERG, Vice President for Human Resources; BANKS EVANS, Assistant Vice President; and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 925, a labor organization, Defendants. |
Plaintiff Charlene Wagner brings this putative class action against her former employer, the University of Washington ("University"), and former union, the Service Employees International Union Local 925 ("SEIU" or "Union"), alleging that each violated her First Amendment and Due Process rights by deducting union dues from her paycheck in a manner contrary to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). Before the Court are the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Dkt. Nos. 25 ("Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J."), 27 ("SEIU Mot. for Summ. J."), 28 ("Univ. Mot. for Summ. J.").1 Having reviewed the Motions, the oppositions thereto, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will grant the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The reasoning for the Court's decision follows.
The parties have stipulated to a set of facts relevant to the pending motions. See Stipulation Regarding Facts for Cross-Mot. for Summ. J., Dkt. No. 20 ("Stipulated Facts"). Plaintiff was employed by the University as a Fiscal Specialist from 1999 until she separated from her employment in February 2020. Id. ¶ 3. The Union is the sole representative of employees at the University, but University employees are not required to become Union members. Id. ¶¶ 1, 8. The parties agree that Plaintiff voluntarily became a member of the Union in 1999 when she signed a membership agreement and union dues deduction authorization, which is commonly referred to as a "membership card." Id. ¶¶ 3, 8, 9; see also Stipulated Facts, Ex. 5, Dkt. No. 22 ("1999 Membership Card"). The 1999 Membership Card states that the undersigned "hereby authorize[s] the University of Washington to deduct the current amount of dues/fees, based on the status specified below" and "Member" is checked off. 1999 Membership Card. In exchange for paying Union dues, the parties stipulate that Plaintiff received certain benefits, including the right to voteon Union leadership, participate in internal Union affairs, access discounts for Union members, and other membership rights. Stipulated Facts ¶¶ 19-21.
On June 13, 2018, just before the Supreme Court's decision in Janus, Plaintiff signed a second membership card renewing her commitment to join the Union as a member. Id. ¶¶ 10, 13; Stipulated Facts, Ex. 6, Dkt. No. 20-6 ("2018 Membership Card"). The 2018 Membership Card include an affirmation of the undersigned's commitment to the Union and agreement to pay membership dues. 2018 Membership Card.
Like the 1999 Membership Card, the 2018 Membership Card includes an independent agreement authorizing annual deductions, stating that "I hereby request and authorize my employer to deduct from my wages all Union dues of fees as shall be certified by SEIU Local 925 in an amount equal to the regular monthly dues or fees uniformly applicable to members of SEIU Local 925." Id. This latter agreement states that it is "made in consideration for the cost of representation and other actions on my behalf by my Union" and that it shall remain in effect and shall be irrevocable unless revoked by sending written notice to both the University and the Union during a 15 day revocation period open once a year from when the agreement was entered. Id. Further, the authorization states that it shall be automatically renewed from year-to-year unless revoked in writing during the revocation window. Id.
Dues deductions for individual members such as those agreed to by Plaintiff are established, and controlled by, the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") reached between the University, as employer, and the Union, representing employees. The relevant article of the CBA has been amended several times. All versions are the same, however, in that they authorize the University to deduct dues from Union members' paychecks and remit them to the Union. SeeStipulated Facts, Exs. 1-3, Dkt. Nos. 20-1 to 20-3.
On June 24, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Janus, holding that unions were not entitled to mandate deductions from the paychecks of non-consenting, non-union members. 138 S. Ct. at 2486. Janus overruled a system established by the Supreme Court's previous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which recognized that employees did not have to join a union, but the union that represented their bargaining unit could still charge such employees a fee to support the union's collective bargaining activities.
In response to Janus, the State of Washington amended its code on collective bargaining to include a new section affirming that union membership is voluntary. WASH. REV. CODE § 41.80.050; see also S.H.B. 1575, 66th Leg., 2019 Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2019). The State also enacted a new section to govern authorization and revocation of union membership dues deduction. WASH. REV. CODE § 41.80.100.
Plaintiff also reacted to the decision in Janus. On October 24, 2018, she sent a letter to the Union resigning her membership and requesting that the Union immediately cease deducting membership dues from her paycheck. Stipulated Facts ¶ 22; see also Stipulated Facts, Ex. 7, Dkt. No. 20-7. The Union responded with a letter dated November 8, 2018, informing Plaintiff that she may resign her membership at any time but, according to the 2018 Membership Card she signed, she could only request that dues deductions cease during the designated revocation period. Stipulated Facts ¶ 23; see also Stipulated Facts, Ex. 8, Dkt. No. 20-8. The letter identified this period as April 29, 2019 through May 14, 2019.
Plaintiff did not contact the Union again either to affirm her resignation from membership or to request revocation of the membership dues deductions authorization during the designatedrevocation period. Stipulated Facts ¶¶ 24-25. Instead, she filed suit in this Court on January 20, 2020. Stipulated Facts ¶ 25; Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Only after filing suit, did she attempt to contact the University by sending an email on January 21, 2020. Stipulated Facts ¶ 25. Thus, when Plaintiff filed suit, the University was still deducting membership dues from Plaintiff's wages. Id. ¶ 26. On January 31, 2020, the Union instructed the University to stop such deductions, which it did. Id. ¶ 27. The last pay period for which dues were deducted was the pay period associated with earnings between January 1 and January 15, 2020. Id. Plaintiff formally separated from the University shortly thereafter on February 28, 2020. Id. ¶ 3.
After both parties submitted their Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff amended her complaint to add several officials from the University. See Second Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 31-1 ("SAC"). In her SAC, Plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of current and former employees of the University who had, or continue to have, dues deducted according to their membership in the Union. SAC ¶¶ 37-48.
Plaintiff brings seven claims for relief. Four claims she advances under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that (1) deducting union payments from her wages pursuant to RCW § 41.80.100 violated the First Amendment; (2) deducting union payments from her wages pursuant to the Union's CBA violated the First Amendment; (3) the procedures of dues deductions established by RCW § 41.80.100 violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) deducting union payments from her wages violated her freedom of association. SAC ¶¶ 49-71. Plaintiff also advances three state common law causes of action including (1) breach of contract based on the 1999 Membership Card agreement; (2) breach of contract based on the 2018 Membership Cardagreement; and (3) unjust enrichment. Id. ¶¶ 72-87. Based on the forgoing, Plaintiff seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief, and retrospective compensatory damages in the amount of all dues she ever paid (within the statute of limitations), plus nominal damages, "mental anguish damages," restitution, and punitive damages. Id. ¶¶ 88-98.
The claims Plaintiff raises regarding collection of union dues from union members post-Janus are not new. The Union points the Court to "more than 20 federal courts that have considered claims materially indistinguishable from Plaintiff's First Amendment claims here" and unanimously rejected those claims. SEIU Mot. for Summ. J. at 1-2; see also id. at 2 n.1 (listing cases); Defs.' Joint Reply in Support of Def. SEIU's Cross-Mot. for Summ. J. and Def. University's Mot. for Summ. J., Dkt. No. 33 (). Three cases are noteworthy as they originated in this District and the plaintiffs in those cases were represented by the same advocacy organization that represents Plaintiff in this matter. See Yates v. Washington Fed'n of State Emps., No. 20-cv-05082, 2020 WL 3118496 (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2020); Belgau v. Inslee, No. 18-cv-5620, 2018 WL 4931602 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2018) (); Belgau v. Inslee, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (); Fisk v. Inslee, No. 16-cv-5889, 2017 WL 4619223 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2017), aff'd, 759 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2019) ("Fisk II"). Thus, the Court considers these claims thoroughly...
To continue reading
Request your trial