340 F. Supp. 3d 1083
W.D. Wash.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are Washington public employees who challenge compelled "agency fees" paid to a union as violating the First Amendment because fees fund speech they oppose.
- Plaintiffs sued the State (Governor and OFM Director) and AFSCME Council 28 seeking declaratory, injunctive, monetary (refund/disgorgement), and attorneys' fees relief under § 1983.
- After Janus v. AFSCME (2018) overturned Abood, the State stopped collecting agency fees and the Court dismissed claims against the State as moot.
- The Union moved for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment arguing mootness for injunctive/declaratory claims and that a "good faith" defense bars monetary liability for pre-Janus fee retention.
- The central legal question was whether a private union can be held liable under § 1983 for collecting agency fees before Janus, or whether a good faith defense (reliance on then-valid law/state authorization) shields it.
- The Court concluded the injunctive/declaratory claims were moot and granted summary judgment for the Union on monetary claims based on a good faith defense—dismissing the Union from the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of declaratory/injunctive relief | Claims remain because plaintiffs seek relief for compelled fees | Claims are moot because State ceased fee collection after Janus | Moot — dismiss declaratory/injunctive claims (without prejudice) |
| Monetary relief for pre-Janus fees under § 1983 | No good-faith shield; analogize to conversion or require discovery into subjective intent | Good-faith defense bars damages for conduct authorized by then-valid law and state contract | Held for defendant — good faith defense applies; no monetary liability |
| Proper common-law analogue for Wyatt analysis | Wyatt requires comparing to most analogous common-law tort (plaintiffs say conversion) | Union says dignitary torts are a closer analogue; Ninth Circuit precedent does not demand plaintiffs' test | Court rejects plaintiffs' strict analogue requirement as controlling here |
| Need for discovery into subjective belief of union officials | Plaintiffs ask for discovery to probe subjective intent (whether union should have known Abood was wrong) | Union says no reasonable basis to expect they could know Supreme Court would overrule precedent; discovery would be futile | No discovery required; court applies good-faith defense as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (overruled Abood; public-sector agency fees require affirmative consent)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (upheld constitutionality of agency fees prior to being overruled)
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992) (discussed availability of good-faith/qualified defenses in § 1983 suits)
- Clement v. City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (Ninth Circuit recognition of good-faith considerations for private defendants)
- Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (addressed limits on use of compelled fees for political purposes)
- Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014) (signals Supreme Court skepticism of Abood and limits on compelled fees)