D'Agostino v. Baker
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2023
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Family child care providers operate in their own homes, serving low-income/at-risk children, with payments funded by the Commonwealth.
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 15D, § 17(b) treats providers as public employees for purposes of chapter 150E (collective bargaining).
- A majority of providers chose SEIU Local 509 as their exclusive bargaining agent; topics include standard bargaining matters like recruitment and training.
- No provider is required to join the Union or contribute money; providers may raise policy concerns and speak independently, with union representation at some meetings.
- District court dismissed the facial First Amendment challenge under Rule 12(b)(6); the appeal focuses on the associational rights tied to exclusive representation.
- The court’s analysis relies on Abood and Knight, discusses Harris as distinguishable, and affirms dismissal—no compelled financial support or unconstitutional compelled association.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does exclusive bargaining representation of non-union providers violate First Amendment rights | Abood/Knight control; Harris not applicable | Exclusive representation is consistent with precedent; no compelled speech | No First Amendment violation; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (Supreme Court, 1977) (upholds agency shop rationale for public employees)
- Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (Supreme Court, 1984) (no right to force state to listen or endorse union positions; exclusive agent speech not attributed to dissents)
- Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (Supreme Court, 2014) (distinguishes partial public employees; agency fees not justified for those feeding directly to private individuals)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (Supreme Court, 1977) (not compelled to bear ideological message)
- Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (Supreme Court, 2000) (compelled association not required to accept public expression)
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (Supreme Court, 1995) (no compelled modification of expressive conduct)
- Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, 618 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes association from membership; limited standing)
- Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court, 1944) (fiduciary duty concepts and representational duties in labor relations)