DURST v. OREGON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-29No. No. 20-35374

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's summary judgment was affirmed because the plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief were moot, the union defendants' actions arose from private agreements without state action, and the school district defendants properly implemented voluntary dues deductions to which the plaintiffs had consented.

Three former union members sued under federal civil rights law, claiming that union dues deductions violated their First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed their claims, and the appellate court affirmed that decision on multiple independent grounds.

The court first found that claims seeking to stop future dues deductions were moot because the plaintiffs had already resigned their union membership and showed no intent to rejoin. Second, regarding the union organizations themselves, the court held that dues deductions stemming from private membership agreements do not constitute government action and therefore do not implicate constitutional protections. Third, as to the school district defendants, the court determined that the plaintiffs had voluntarily consented to the dues deductions through valid membership agreements, and the Supreme Court's decision in Janus did not create a right to escape dues obligations that were already validly undertaken.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Mootness of claims for prospective relief when plaintiff resigned union membership
Whether private union dues agreements trigger state action and constitutional scrutiny
Application of Janus decision to pre-existing voluntary membership agreements
First Amendment rights regarding union dues deductions

Procedural posture

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's entry of summary judgment on their § 1983 First Amendment claims relating to union dues deductions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jeremy Durst, Deanne Tanner, and Michael Garcie appeal from the district courts summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment claims arising out of union membership dues. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016) (decision on cross-motions for summary judgment); Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003) (mootness determinations). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief because such claims are moot. See Bain v. Cal. Teachers Assn, 891 F.3d 1206, 1211-15 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief moot when they resigned their union membership and presented no reasonable likelihood that they would rejoin the union in the future).

Summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims against Oregon Education Association, Southern Oregon Bargaining Council Eagle Point Education Certified and Classified Employees, and Portland Association of Teachers because the deduction of union membership dues arose from private membership agreements between the parties, and “private dues agreements do not trigger state action and independent constitutional scrutiny.” Belgau, v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946-49 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-1120, ––– U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2021 WL 2519114 (June 21, 2021) (discussing state action).

Summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim against Eagle Point School District 9 and Portland Public Schools/Multnomah County School District Number 1 because plaintiffs affirmatively consented to the voluntary deduction of union dues, and the Supreme Courts decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018), did not extend a First Amendment right to avoid paying union dues that were agreed upon under validly entered membership agreements. See Belgau, 975 F.3d at 950-52.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.