Rebecca Hill v. Service Employees Internationa
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4209
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellants are home-healthcare (HSP) and childcare (CCAP) providers in Illinois who receive state payments but are hired/supervised by customers; they are treated as public employees only for purposes of the IPLRA.
- Under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (IPLRA), a majority-elected union serves as the exclusive bargaining representative for a bargaining unit; a majority of HSP and CCAP providers selected SEIU.
- SEIU bargains with Illinois over wages, hours, and other employment terms, but providers are not required to join the union or pay dues after Harris v. Quinn struck down the IPLRA’s mandatory-fee provision.
- Appellants sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the IPLRA’s exclusive-representation scheme forces an agency-like association in violation of the First Amendment freedom of (and not to) associate.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the exclusive-representation scheme does not create a mandatory association triggering heightened scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IPLRA’s exclusive-bargaining-rep requirement creates a compelled association under the First Amendment | The statute forces providers into an agency-like association with SEIU and thus infringes freedom not to associate | Exclusive representation does not force membership or financial support; providers remain free to oppose SEIU and present grievances | No compelled association; exclusive representation is constitutional under Knight |
| Whether Harris v. Quinn changes Knight’s rule | Harris shows providers are not full-fledged public employees and struck down mandatory fees, implying broader protections | Harris concerned only mandatory-fee provision and did not disturb Knight’s approval of exclusive representation | Harris did not alter Knight; it limited mandatory-fee rules but left exclusive-rep scheme intact |
| Whether heightened scrutiny applies | Appellants: exclusive rep is like other compelled-association cases requiring exacting scrutiny | Defendants: exclusive-rep differs from cases like Hurley, Dale, Elrod; no compelled ideological expression or forced inclusion | Heightened scrutiny does not apply; exclusive representation is unlike those special associational cases |
| If only rational-basis applies, whether IPLRA survives | Appellants did not argue irrationality | Illinois: has legitimate, rational interests in hearing providers’ concerns efficiently via a single representative | IPLRA survives rational-basis review as a rational means to legitimate state interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) (upheld exclusive bargaining representation against associational challenge)
- Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014) (struck down mandatory union-fee provision for home-care providers; did not invalidate exclusive-rep scheme)
- Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (explains exacting scrutiny for compelled associations and distinguishes types of associational burdens)
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (framework for freedom of association protections)
- D’Agostino v. Baker, 812 F.3d 240 (1st Cir. 2016) (held Harris did not overrule Knight; exclusive representation does not by itself violate associational rights)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (political affiliation termination case illustrating compelled-association scrutiny)