992 F.3d 950
10th Cir.2021Background
- Brett Hendrickson was a dues-paying AFSCME member while employed at the New Mexico Human Services Department; he signed membership/dues-deduction agreements in 2004, 2007, and 2017 that authorized payroll deductions and included an annual two-week December opt-out window.
- After the Supreme Court decided Janus (June 2018), Hendrickson tried to resign and stop payroll deductions; the Union processed his resignation in December 2018 but some deductions continued into December/January and the Union later refunded a small amount.
- Hendrickson sued the Union and New Mexico officials seeking (1) a declaration that the opt-out window and state deduction statute violate the First Amendment and (2) damages for dues deducted (either since 2004 or since Janus). He also challenged the statute authorizing exclusive union representation.
- The district court granted the Union’s summary judgment and dismissed the state officials; Hendrickson appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit held Hendrickson’s request for prospective relief about the opt-out window was moot (he resigned and deductions stopped) and that his retrospective damages claim failed because his dues deductions were authorized by valid contracts formed before Janus.
- The court also held the Governor and Attorney General had Eleventh Amendment immunity (Ex parte Young did not apply because enforcement is vested in an independent PELRB), and that exclusive representation is constitutional under Knight and consistent with Janus, so the Union’s role as exclusive representative is permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hendrickson may recover past union dues paid under his membership agreements (retrospective damages) | Janus renders prior agreements void/voidable; he lacked "affirmative" consent and was compelled because pre-Janus choice forced him to pay agency fees or join | Deductions were made under valid, voluntarily signed contracts formed before Janus; change in law is not retroactive and does not undo contractual obligations | Denied. Contracts valid when signed; Janus does not permit recovery of past dues. |
| Whether the membership opt-out window and related prospective relief are unconstitutional | The opt-out window unconstitutionally restricts the ability to resign and stop deductions post-Janus | Moot because Hendrickson resigned and dues stopped; moreover, opt-out terms were self-imposed contractual terms | Prospective claim is moot (no live controversy); dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether exclusive union representation violates the First Amendment and whether state officials are proper defendants | Exclusive representation forces Hendrickson to accept union speech/representation and thus compels association | Supreme Court precedent permits exclusive representation; enforcement lies with PELRB (not Governor/AG), so Ex parte Young does not apply to those officials | Exclusive-rep claim against state officials dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds; claim against Union fails on merits under Knight/Janus (exclusive representation constitutional). |
Key Cases Cited
- Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (held public-sector nonmembers cannot be compelled to pay agency fees; did not eliminate exclusive representation)
- Minn. State Bd. for Cmty. Colls. v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) (upheld constitutionality of exclusive representative restricting participation in certain bargaining activities)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (created exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for suits against state officers enforcing unlawful state action)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (upheld public-sector agency fees prior to being overruled by Janus)
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) (parties may bind themselves by contractual promises that limit conduct otherwise implicating constitutional rights)
- Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020) (post-Janus precedent recognizing Janus does not permit members to reclaim dues paid under voluntary agreements)
- Town of Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U.S. 668 (1881) (principle that contractual rights are governed by law in force when contract formed)