Melissa Belgau v. Jay Inslee
975 F.3d 940
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Seven Washington state employees ("Employees") belonged to a WFSE bargaining unit and signed union membership cards that "voluntarily authorize[d]" payroll deduction of union dues, with each authorization "irrevocable for a period of one year."
- Membership conferred voting, committee, and member-only benefits; dues were ~1.37–1.5% of wages; pre-Janus nonmembers could instead pay reduced agency (fair-share) fees.
- After Janus v. AFSCME (2018) invalidated compelled agency fees for nonmembers, Employees resigned union membership but Washington continued deducting dues until each one-year irrevocable period lapsed.
- Employees sued WFSE (the union) and state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment seeking damages and an injunction to stop payroll deductions; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: the § 1983 claim against WFSE failed for lack of state action; the First Amendment claim against the State failed because Employees voluntarily agreed to the one‑year deduction commitments and Janus does not let members avoid dues they contracted to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WFSE is a state actor for § 1983 purposes | WFSE acted "in concert" with the State to authorize deductions, so its conduct is attributable to the State | Dues authorizations and deductions flowed from private agreements; the State's role was ministerial enforcement, not significant encouragement or joint action | WFSE is not a state actor; § 1983 claim dismissed for lack of state action |
| Whether injunctive claim against State is moot / justiciable | Deductions were ongoing when suit filed; equitable relief remains necessary | Deductions stopped when one‑year authorizations expired; however claim fits the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception | Court exercised jurisdiction under the transitory‑claim exception (not moot) |
| Whether payroll deduction of dues from members without a new constitutional waiver violates the First Amendment | Janus requires any waiver of First Amendment rights to be "freely given" and "clear and compelling," so deductions without a constitutional waiver are invalid | Employees voluntarily joined and signed irrevocable one‑year dues authorizations; Janus prohibits compelled fees for nonmembers only and does not liberate members from contract obligations | No First Amendment violation: members voluntarily agreed to dues; Janus does not create a right for members to avoid paying contracted dues |
| Whether Janus transformed member dues authorizations into invalid compelled speech | Janus's protection against compelled speech applies to any paycheck deductions lacking affirmative consent | Janus targeted automatically deducted agency fees from nonmembers who were not asked or required to consent; it left membership dues collected from consenting members intact | Janus does not invalidate voluntary membership/dues commitments; members cannot renege under First Amendment grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (compelled agency fees from nonmembers violate the First Amendment; states may not force nonmembers to subsidize unions)
- Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) (private conduct is outside Fourteenth Amendment unless fairly attributable to the State)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (two‑prong test for state action: source of deprivation and whether private actor is fairly attributable to the State)
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (mere approval or acquiescence by the State is insufficient; significant assistance required to make private conduct state action)
- Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (1978) (constitutional standards invoked only when the State is responsible for the specific conduct complained of)
- Naoko Ohno v. Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2013) (applies Lugar two‑prong test and describes joint action standards)
- Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2012) (joint action and state‑actor principles in the employment context)
- Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 877 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2017) (state enforcement of private agreements does not by itself create state action)
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (case‑or‑controversy must exist at all stages of review)
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991) (First Amendment does not free parties from generally applicable state‑law contract obligations)