Zuckerman v. Bevin
565 S.W.3d 580
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- In 2017 Kentucky enacted the Kentucky Right to Work Act (2017 HB1), amending KRS 336.130(3) to prohibit requiring membership in or payment to labor organizations as a condition of employment; the Act took effect on an emergency basis.
- Labor unions (Zuckerman, Londrigan, Kentucky AFL-CIO) sued in Franklin Circuit Court, asserting Kentucky constitutional violations: equal protection, prohibition on special legislation (Sections 59/60), takings without compensation (Sections 13/242), and improper emergency designation (Section 55).
- The trial court dismissed the unions’ complaint; the Supreme Court of Kentucky granted transfer and reviewed the facial constitutional challenges de novo.
- The Commonwealth defended the Act as a permissible exercise of legislative police power, rationally aimed at economic development and aligning Kentucky with §14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act allowing states to bar union-security agreements.
- The majority affirmed dismissal: applying rational-basis review to equal protection, rejecting the takings claim (relying on the exclusive-representation framework and Janus reasoning), finding the statute general rather than special, and upholding the emergency designation as having a rational basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection | RTWA arbitrarily discriminates against unions and unionized workers without substantial justification | Act is rationally related to legitimate goals (economic development, job growth, worker choice) and is authorized by federal §14(b) | Upheld under rational-basis review; Act bears a conceivable rational basis and survives equal protection challenge |
| Special legislation (KY Const. §§59/60) | RTWA is special legislation because it targets labor and operates unequally (grandfathers preexisting contracts) | Act is general in operation, applies statewide to all employers/employees (with federal exceptions) and serves legitimate economic purposes | Majority: not special legislation; statute is general with a rational basis; dissent: would have struck it under Sections 59/60 |
| Taking without just compensation (KY Const. §§13/242) | Act effects a taking by forcing unions to provide representation to nonpaying employees and by depriving unions of expected future contract fees | Unions are adequately compensated by exclusive-representation prerogatives; representation serves union interests; no cognizable property right in future fees | No taking: obligation to represent nonmembers is not uncompensated taking; no protected property interest in speculative future fees |
| Emergency clause (KY Const. §55) | Legislature failed to establish a true emergency; clause insufficiently specific | Legislative emergency determinations are entitled to deference if any rational basis exists | Upheld: court will not disturb the legislature’s stated emergency where a rational basis exists; even if invalid, statute would take effect after 90 days per constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (summary of rational-basis equal protection review)
- Beck v. Communications Workers, 487 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1988) (discussing agency fees, union financial core, and historical context)
- NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (U.S. 1963) (Taft-Hartley/section 8(a)(3) and union-security arrangements)
- Railway Employees' Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1956) (judicial deference to legislative policy on labor matters)
- Varney v. Steven Lee Enterprises, 36 S.W.3d 391 (Ky. 2000) (Kentucky discussion of levels of equal protection scrutiny and rational-basis principles)
- Yeoman v. Commonwealth, Health Policy Bd., 983 S.W.2d 459 (Ky. 1998) (two-part test for special legislation: equal application to class and distinctive/natural reasons)
- Elk Horn Coal Corp. v. Cheyenne Resources, 163 S.W.3d 408 (Ky. 2005) (rational-basis review in economic legislation; discussion of enhanced scrutiny in certain special-legislation contexts)
- Bradshaw v. Ball, 487 S.W.2d 294 (Ky. 1972) (addressing compelled provision of services without compensation; distinguished by majority)
- American Insurance Ass'n v. Geary, 635 S.W.2d 306 (Ky. 1982) (emergency-clause judicial review standard)