785 F.3d 1119
6th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are Michigan home childcare providers who received state CDC subsidies; CCPTM was certified as their exclusive bargaining representative and a collective-bargaining agreement required membership or payment of an agency fee deducted from subsidies.
- Plaintiffs sued seeking injunctive, declaratory relief, and damages, and moved to certify a class of all providers who had union dues or fees deducted; Michigan later ceased deductions and settled injunctive claims, leaving only damages and the class-certification question.
- The district court denied class certification for the proposed class because many class members had voted for the agreement (creating a conflict with plaintiffs who opposed fees), and denied a proposed narrower subclass for inability to determine individual motivations without individualized inquiry.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit in Schlaud I affirmed denial of class certification (717 F.3d 451); the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Harris v. Quinn.
- On remand the Sixth Circuit concluded Harris and Knox did not alter its class-certification analysis: the named plaintiffs still failed Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy because substantial class members favored unionization and paying fees, so certification was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(a)(4) | Class should be certified because the merits are live as to damages and class members share the injury from compulsory fee deductions | Many class members voted for unionization/ratified the CBA; their interests conflict with plaintiffs who object to fees | Denied — named plaintiffs fail adequacy requirement due to conflicts with class members who supported the union |
| Whether a narrower subclass (non-signers/non-voters) cures adequacy problems | Subclass excludes those who affirmatively supported the union, so representatives would be adequate | Subclass still includes many who became providers after elections; motivations vary and require individualized inquiries | Denied — individualized issues and turnover prevent showing adequacy and typicality |
| Whether Harris v. Quinn requires a different class-certification outcome | Harris shows the agency-fee scheme is vulnerable on the merits, so class certification should proceed | Harris addressed merits, not class certification; does not erase intra-class conflicts or the need for Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy | Harris does not change class-certification analysis; denial affirmed |
| Whether Knox creates a presumption that nonmembers would not want to pay fees, favoring certification | Knox suggests default preference against compelled payments and supports presuming class-wide opposition to fees | Knox involved a class that had uniformly opted out; here many voted to unionize, so Knox presumption does not apply | Knox is distinguishable; no presumption applies because many class members voted for unionization |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlaud v. Snyder, 717 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2013) (initial Sixth Circuit decision affirming denial of class certification)
- Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014) (Supreme Court holding agency fees unconstitutional as applied to quasi-public home-care workers)
- Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012) (held that unions may not compel nonmembers to pay special assessments for political activity; discussed presumptions about nonmembers’ preferences)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (prior precedent permitting agency fees for full-fledged public employees)
- Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) (discussed by parties; distinguishes class-certification context and conflicts of interest)