Wisconsin Education Ass'n Council v. Walker
824 F. Supp. 2d 856
W.D. Wis.2012Background
- Wisconsin Act 10 created two employee categories: public safety and general, restricting bargaining rights for general employees.
- Plaintiffs challenge three provisions affecting general employees: narrow bargaining topics, annual absolute-majority recertification, and prohibition on automatic dues deductions.
- Public safety unions retain broader bargaining rights and are exempt from the new restrictions.
- Court addresses Equal Protection and First Amendment challenges to these provisions, and related procedural motions.
- Court ultimately grants some relief: summary judgment on certain Equal Protection and First Amendment claims, and enjoins certain Act 10 provisions while ordering reinstatement of dues deductions.
- Judgment directs return to automatic dues deductions for all unions by a specified deadline and bars mandatory annual recertification for general unions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection: rational basis for general vs public safety classifications | General unions lack rational basis for harsher treatment. | classifications relate to avoiding disruptions in essential services. | Partial: rational basis found for some distinctions; not for all challenged provisions. |
| Recertification: annual absolute-majority recertification for general unions | Absolute-majority recertification is unprecedented and irrational. | Legislature had a rational basis related to governance concerns. | Granted: unconstitutional under Equal Protection; no rational basis shown. |
| Dues withholding: general employees barred from payroll deductions | Dues ban burdens speech and disfavors general unions under First Amendment. | Policy aimed at preventing entanglement and favoritism in politics. | Granted: First Amendment violation; compelled subsidies to some speakers but not others. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n, 555 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2009) (discusses government subsidies for speech and equality in application)
- Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1983) (limits on government support of speech; subsidy not required)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (any irrational discrimination subject to rational basis scrutiny)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (speech by associations; political contributions under First Amendment)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1977) (lawful to require fair share for union activities as exclusive bargaining representative)
- City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1994) (government exemptions in speech regulations can undermine rationale)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (corporate political speech; subsidy and speaker distinctions matter)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (U.S. 2011) (heightened scrutiny for burdens on speech of particular speakers)