Theresa Riffey v. Bruce Rauner
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19868
7th Cir.2017Background
- Illinois personal home health care assistants were treated as public employees and, since 2003, represented by SEIU as the exclusive bargaining representative; the union collected “fair-share” fees from nonmembers by automatic payroll deduction until June 30, 2014.
- A subset of assistants (the Objectors) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the involuntary deductions violated the First Amendment; the Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn later held such compelled fees unconstitutional for these assistants and the case was remanded.
- On remand the Objectors sought class certification for ~80,000 nonmembers who paid fees from April 2008 to June 30, 2014, seeking refunds (~$32 million total).
- The district court denied certification, concluding the class definition was overbroad, named plaintiffs were inadequate (intra-class conflicts), individual damage questions predominated, and manageability/superiority problems existed; it entered injunctive relief and individual damages for named plaintiffs; appeal followed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of class certification for the reasons above.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/Injury: whether fee-taking alone gives a First Amendment injury without subjective opposition | Riffey: taking money without affirmative consent is itself a constitutional injury (denial of choice) | Union: many nonmembers would have consented or supported the union, so no injury for those individuals | Court: subjective opposition matters; evidence that many did not object undermines classwide injury finding |
| Class ascertainability/objective definition (subjective criteria problem) | Plaintiffs: class defined by unpaid-fee status is adequate | Union: membership/support are subjective and make class membership (injury) unclear | Court: subjective state-of-mind criteria impede ascertainability and class treatment; courts may consider subjective factors |
| Adequacy of representatives / intra-class conflicts of interest | Plaintiffs: ideological differences about the union don’t alter identical interest in refunds | Union: some members supported union or joined later; representatives hostile to union conflict with pro-union class members | Court: substantial evidence of intra-class conflicts (e.g., many later joined); named reps inadequate under Rule 23(a)(4) |
| Predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) (individual damages vs common issues) | Plaintiffs: common legal question resolved by Harris; damages calculable classwide | Union: damages and causation require individualized inquiries into each member’s views and injury | Court: individual questions about injury/damages predominate; class litigation would be unmanageable and not superior |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014) (held compelled fair-share fees unlawful for home healthcare personal assistants)
- Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012) (opt-out systems risk compelling nonmembers to subsidize political speech; affirmative consent required for special assessments)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (Rule 23(a) commonality requirement and limits on classwide proof)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem, 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (predominance analysis: common vs individual questions)
- Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) (classes defined by subjective criteria fail ascertainability)
- Gilpin v. American Federation of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO, 875 F.2d 1310 (7th Cir. 1989) (intra-class conflict when nonmembers include both ideological opponents and free-riders)
- Schlaud v. Snyder, 785 F.3d 1119 (6th Cir. 2015) (affirmed denial of class certification where class likely included members with conflicting preferences about union representation)
- Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986) (damages require proof of actual injury caused by constitutional deprivation)