GROSSMAN v. Russell A. Suzuki, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Hawaii, Defendant. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-29No. No. 20-15356

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against Grossman's First Amendment claims because her prospective-relief claim was moot, her challenge to the bargaining arrangement failed to allege a plausible legal violation, and her challenge to dues collection failed because she had voluntarily consented to the deduction under a valid membership agreement.

Patricia Grossman sued under federal civil-rights law, alleging that her First Amendment rights were violated through union membership dues collected in Hawaii. The district court granted summary judgment against her on all claims, and Grossman appealed. The court reviewed three separate bases for dismissal: a claim for prospective relief that had become moot because Grossman had resigned her union membership and showed no intent to rejoin, a challenge to the exclusive bargaining arrangement for public employees that failed to state a legally viable claim, and a challenge to the dues collection itself.

The court upheld all three grounds for dismissal. For the dues-collection claim specifically, the court relied on a recent appellate decision establishing that employees who voluntarily agree to union membership cannot later claim a First Amendment violation based on dues deductions. The Supreme Court's decision protecting public employees from mandatory union support did not extend to dues that were knowingly agreed to under valid membership contracts. Because Grossman had affirmatively consented to the dues arrangement, no First Amendment violation occurred.

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

Key issues

Whether a claim for prospective relief regarding union membership is moot when the plaintiff has resigned and shows no reasonable likelihood of rejoining
Whether an exclusive bargaining representation arrangement for public employees violates the First Amendment
Whether voluntary consent to union membership dues under a valid agreement precludes a First Amendment challenge to dues collection

Procedural posture

Grossman appealed from a district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations arising from union membership and dues collection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Patricia Grossman appeals from the district courts summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of union membership dues. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a decision on cross motions for summary judgment. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). 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 Grossmans claim seeking prospective relief because such claim is 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).

The district court properly dismissed Grossmans First Amendment claim challenging the exclusive bargaining representation arrangement for Hawaii public employees because Grossman failed to allege a plausible claim. See Mentele v. Inslee, 916 F.3d 783, 790-91 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that exclusive bargaining arrangement is constitutionally permissible); Bain, 891 F.3d at 1211 (setting forth standard of review for motion to dismiss).

The parties agree that this courts intervening decision in Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-1120, ––– U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2021 WL 2519114 (June 21, 2021), controls the outcome of Grossmans First Amendment claim arising from the collection of union dues under her membership agreement. We affirm the district courts summary judgment because Grossman affirmatively and voluntarily consented to the deduction of union dues. See Belgau, 975 F.3d at 950-52 (concluding that 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 union membership agreements).

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

AFFIRMED.