Bailey v. Callaghan
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80281
E.D. Mich.2012Background
- Unions, MEA and affiliates, sued MERC officials Challenging Act 53 amending PERA and payroll deductions.
- Act 53 prohibited public school employers from using payroll deductions to collect union dues, effective immediately for some unions.
- Some unions had collective bargaining agreements; others did not, affecting payroll-deduction continuation.
- The action followed political and legislative developments in 2011–2012 surrounding Acts 4929 and 53 and related rhetoric.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing equal protection and First Amendment violations.
- Court granted preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Act 53 pending merits resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection standard and rational basis | Unions: Act 53 lacks rational basis to target unions. | Defendants: Act 53 advances legitimate government interests adjusted by NLRA framework. | Unions likely to prevail; no rational basis shown. |
| First Amendment burden on speech | Act 53 burdens union speech and is underinclusive. | Act 53 applies evenhandedly and is viewpoint-neutral. | Unions likely to prevail; law burdens speech and is underinclusive. |
| Irreparable harm | Loss of dues and advocacy revenue irreparably harms unions and speech. | Harm is speculative and could be mitigated. | Irreparable harm shown; First Amendment rights at stake. |
| Public interest and balance of harms | Injury to constitutional rights outweighs potential harms to others. | Injunction disrupts government interests and operations. | Public interest favors injunction; harms minimal compared to rights at stake. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (rational basis review for non-suspect classifications and fundamental rights)
- Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) (evenhanded, viewpoint-neutral payroll deduction restrictions; discusses scrutiny level)
- United Food and Commercial Workers Local 99 v. Brewer, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2011) (underinclusive, discriminatory based on speaker; strict scrutiny applied)
- Wisconsin Education Association Council v. Walker, 824 F. Supp. 2d 856 (W.D. Wis. 2012) (underinclusive restriction on payroll deductions; no sufficient justification)
- Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. Hudson, 667 F.3d 630 (5th Cir. 2012) (application of heightened scrutiny to discriminate-against-voice regulation)
- News America Pub., Inc. v. FCC, 844 F.2d 800 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (context for heightened scrutiny and broadcasting/speech regulation)
- Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (factors for preliminary injunction; balance and likelihood considerations)
- Grandville Municipal Executive Ass’n v. City of Grandville, 453 Mich. 428 (1996) (Michigan PERA interpretation guided by NLRA precedents)