Harris v. Quinn
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18188
7th Cir.2011Background
- Plainiffs provide in-home care to disabled individuals under Illinois Medicaid waivers; Rehabilitation Program plaintiffs pay fair share fees to SEIU as part of a state-recognized collective bargaining agreement; Disabilities Program plaintiffs rejected unionization and are not paying fair share but claims may arise if unionization occurs; Illinois designates personal care attendants as State employees for collective bargaining purposes; State controls significant terms of employment including wages, hours, service plans, and payment; District court dismissed Rehabilitation Program claims and Disabilities Program claims for ripeness/standing, leading to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Rehabilitation Program personal assistants State employees for purposes of Abood | Harris contends they are not State employees, so fees violate the First Amendment | State asserts joint-employer relationship; Abood applies if State employs the workers | Yes, State employees for Abood purposes |
| Do Disabilities Program claims ripe or subject to dismissal | Executive order creates potential future duty to pay fees if unionizes | Claims rest on contingent future events and are not ripe | Not ripe; dismiss without prejudice and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Railway Employees’ Dep’t v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956) (upheld union shop as compatible with industrial peace)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (upheld mandatory fees for non-members related to collective bargaining)
- Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (outlined procedures to protect non-member fees)
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assoc., 500 U.S. 507 (1991) (elaborated charges that can be funded with union dues)
- Boire v. Greyhound Corp., 376 U.S. 473 (1964) (joint employment considerations in labor relations)