Page 3 - 2018 Janus Toolkit CCD

OVERVIEW & NEXT STEPS

FIRM OVERVIEW Overturning a longstanding precedent, the United States Supreme Court has held in Janus

Practice Areas v. AFSCME that public employees may not be compelled to pay mandatory agency fees,
or “fair share” fees, to public-sector unions, because such fees violate the First Amendment.
Charter Schools
Community Colleges
Facilities & Business The Janus decision will have a sweeping, nationwide impact on public sector labor unions.
Labor & Employment The Court’s 5-4 decision immediately affects laws in at least 22 states, including California,
Litigation
Local Government/ that currently allow public sector unions to charge and collect agency or fair share fees.
Special Districts
Public Finance
Public Safety BACKGROUND
Special Education
Students
Technology & Innovation Mark Janus is an Illinois public sector employee who sued the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), arguing that a state law allowing the
union to charge and collect fees from non-members violated his and other workers’ First
Statewide Amendment rights.
Bakersfield
Fresno The Supreme Court previously decided this issue in 1977 in the case of Abood v. Detroit
Los Angeles Board of Education, then holding it was constitutional for public sector unions to collect
Mission Viejo
Monterey agency fees from nonunion members to defray the cost of collective bargaining and other
Sacramento activities, provided nonunion members were not required to pay for a union’s political or
San Diego
Walnut Creek ideological activities. The Court now holds in Janus that states and public-sector unions
may no longer collect agency fees from nonconsenting employees.

Practice Group Leaders The Court held that compelling employees to subsidize the speech of private speakers,
including public-sector unions, violates the First Amendment, noting that “[c]ompelling in-
dividuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitu-
tional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned.”

Critically, “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted
Stephanie White
swhite@lozanosmith.com from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a pay-
ment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.” In anticipation of the ruling,
California’s newly adopted Senate Bill (SB) 866, signed into law by the Governor on June
27, makes several changes regarding public employers’ deduction of union dues and fees.
Among these is a requirement for public employers to rely on the representations of the
union regarding an employee’s deduction authorizations. The new California requirement
Steve Ngo
sngo@lozanosmith.com creates a potential conflict with the Supreme Court’s express statement that an employee
must “affirmatively consent to pay,” because under SB 866 the employer is not entitled to
see the authorization before making a deduction unless there is a dispute.

Janus v. AFSCME Overview and Next Steps LozanoSmith.com