Bierman v. Dayton, No. 14-3468 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseHomecare providers challenge the constitutionality of a Minnesota statute designating them state employees for the purpose of unionization, Minn. Stat. 179A.54. In this interlocutory appeal, the homecare providers renew their motion preliminarily to enjoin the state from holding an election and certifying an exclusive representation. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the event the homecare providers attempted to stop - the election and subsequent certification of the Services Employees International Union Healthcare Minnesota (SEIU) as the exclusive representative - has already occurred.The court also concluded that the resulting harm from the certification of SEIU as the exclusive representative is not capable of repetition because SEIU has already been certified, and the underlying legal issues do not evade review because the homecare providers’ challenge to the Act is still pending before the district court. Accordingly, because no exception applies, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Smith and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - labor law.In an action by homecare providers challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota statute designating them state employees for the purpose of unionization, the providers sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the state from holding an election and certifying an exclusive representative and appealed the district court's denial of motion; the election the providers sought to prevent has occurred and a representative has been certified; as a result, this appeal is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.