38 F.4th 68
9th Cir.2022Background
- Janus (2018) overruled Abood and held that compulsory public‑sector union “agency fees” violate the First Amendment.
- Several Santa Clara County correctional employees sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking refunds of agency fees taken pre‑Janus from their pay.
- The district court dismissed the claims against both the union and the County, concluding defendants could invoke a good‑faith defense based on reliance on pre‑Janus precedent and state law.
- This court’s prior decision in Danielson v. Inslee held that private parties (including unions) may assert a good‑faith affirmative defense to retrospective § 1983 monetary liability when they acted in direct reliance on binding Supreme Court precedent and presumptively valid state law; appellants conceded Danielson disposes of the claim against the union.
- The sole question on appeal was whether a municipality (Santa Clara County) is likewise entitled to the good‑faith defense; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning municipalities are treated like private corporations for proprietary tort liability and Danielson’s reasons apply equally.
- Judge Bumatay concurred, agreeing the panel was bound by Danielson but criticizing Danielson for departing from the Supreme Court’s mandate to base § 1983 defenses on historical/common‑law inquiry rather than amorphous “equality and fairness” reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a municipality may assert a good‑faith affirmative defense under § 1983 to retroactive refund claims for pre‑Janus agency fees | County cannot invoke good‑faith to avoid restitution for funds unconstitutionally taken | County relied on then‑binding Supreme Court precedent (Abood) and presumptively valid state law, so it should get the same good‑faith defense as unions | Held: Yes. Municipalities may assert a good‑faith defense where they acted in direct reliance on binding Supreme Court precedent and presumptively valid state law; affirming dismissal. |
| Whether Employees forfeited the argument that municipalities cannot assert the good‑faith defense by failing to raise it below | Employees forfeited because they did not make the precise municipal argument in district court | Employees preserved the broader challenge to applying any good‑faith defense to restitution claims; appellate briefing may press alternative arguments | Held: No forfeiture. The appellate court considered the municipal‑defense argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (overruled Abood; compulsory agency fees violate the First Amendment)
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (previously permitted compulsory agency fees)
- Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2019) (private parties/unions may assert a good‑faith defense to retrospective § 1983 liability when relying on binding precedent and state law)
- Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) (municipalities treated like private corporations for proprietary tort liability; rejected municipal qualified immunity)
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992) (left open possibility that private defendants could have a good‑faith defense under § 1983)
- Clement v. City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognized potential good‑faith defense for private parties)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (§ 1983 does not automatically abrogate settled common‑law defenses)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (mandates historical/common‑law inquiry when determining § 1983 immunities and defenses)