Danielson v. Inslee
345 F. Supp. 3d 1336
W.D. Wash.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are Washington state employees who challenged the State's prior practice of deducting compulsory "agency fees" from nonunion members. The suit was filed March 15, 2018.
- On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Janus, holding that public employers may not deduct any union payment from nonconsenting employees.
- Both parties agree that Washington stopped withholding agency fees after Janus and that the State has not resumed collections.
- The State submitted uncontested declarations from two human-resources officials describing immediate, Janus‑driven steps to cease deductions and to revise membership paperwork; Plaintiffs did not seek discovery or dispute those declarations.
- The narrow legal question was whether the State's voluntary cessation of fee collections rendered Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs' claims are moot after the State stopped collecting agency fees post-Janus | Voluntary cessation is insufficient; statutes remain unchanged and Janus does not self‑execute against nonparties absent a court order | State argues cessation was in good faith, clearly tied to Janus, and that fees cannot reasonably be expected to recur | Court held claims are moot and dismissed State Defendants without prejudice |
| Whether government policy changes can moot a case | Policy change here is voluntary and thus may be reversible; litigation not obviated by mere policy statements | Government must show it is "absolutely clear" the wrongful conduct will not recur; State points to unequivocal, immediate steps taken statewide | Court found State met the heavy burden: policy change was broad, unequivocal, Janus‑driven, and not likely to be abandoned |
| Whether Janus applicability requires court judgment to render relief effective against nonparties | Janus does not automatically bind unrelated actors, so Plaintiffs argue the Court must decide | State relies on Janus' clear rule and its own admissions to cease fee collection | Court distinguished cases like Obergefell and concluded Janus was broadly applicable and motivated the State's compliance |
| Whether factual development (declarations) could be considered without converting to summary judgment | Plaintiffs argued declarations insufficient without discovery | Defendants pointed to Ninth Circuit precedent permitting such consideration on jurisdictional issues | Court considered declarations (uncontroverted) and did not convert the motion to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cty. & Mun. Employees Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (public‑sector unions may not collect fees from nonconsenting employees)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (prior precedent permitting agency fees overturned by Janus)
- Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2014) (voluntary cessation and the "absolutely clear" standard for mootness by government defendants)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness standard: plaintiff must have a live controversy unless defendant shows wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to recur)
- Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (limitations on compelled fees and discussion of voluntary cessation doctrine)
- White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) (government good‑faith policy changes and burden to show mootness)
- Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2013) (risk of policy reversal relevant to mootness)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (discussed by plaintiffs by analogy; distinguished by the court)