Yates v. Washington Federation of State Employees, AFSCME Council 28, AFL-CIO et al, No. 3:2020cv05082 - Document 37 (W.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting State Defendants' 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's 1983 claims against State Defendants. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and orders that this case be DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (TH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Yates v. Washington Federation of State Employees, AFSCME Council 28, AFL-CIO et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF ) STATE EMPLOYEES, AMERICAN ) FEDERATION OF STATES, COUNTY ) AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, ) COUNCIL 28 AFL-CIO, a labor ) organization, JAY INSLEE, in his official ) capacity as Governor of the State of ) Washington; and SUE BIRCH, in her ) official capacity as Director of the ) Washington State Healthcare Authority, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) SHARRIE YATES I. CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05082-BJR ORDER GRANTING STATE JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c) INTRODUCTION Before the Court is the second dispositive motion filed in this case. The Judge presiding 20 over this case before it was transferred to the undersigned previously granted Defendant 21 claims under 22 23 Section 1983 . See , Dkt. No. 29 Governor Jay Inslee and Director Sue Birch 24 now seek on the Pleadings, Dkt. No. 31 ( 25 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 ). Having reviewed the Motion, the opposition thereto, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will grant the n follows. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The reasoning for II. BACKGROUND The previous order in this case laid out the relevant facts. See MTD Order at 2 4. In brief, Plaintiff is employed as a Medical Assist Specialist 3 with the Washington State Healthcare Authority. When she was first hired in 2004, she became a dues-paying union member of WFSE. Compl., Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 11 12. On October 11, 2018, Plaintiff purported to resign from WFSE and object to all further membership dues deductions from her paycheck. Id. ¶ 14. She claims that, at 11 that time, she learned that WFSE had forged her signature on a June 21, 2018 dues deduction 12 authorization, which prevented her from deauthorizing paycheck deductions until a 10-day 13 revocation period at the end of a yearly period. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges that WFSE did not permit 14 15 16 17 18 her to withdraw from union membership until June 2019 and, while dues deductions ceased, she claims WFSE did not refunded any of the dues taken either before or after she purported to resign. Compl. ¶¶ 27 28. On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court. See Compl., Dkt. No. 1. She 19 advances causes of action under Section 1983 for violations of the First Amendment and the Due 20 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 30 45. She seeks declaratory relief, 21 Id. ¶¶ 59 67. Plaintiff also 22 23 24 25 pleads state law claims for willful withholding of wages and outrage. Id. ¶¶ 46 58. Her case was originally assigned to Judge Ronald B. Leighton. On June 12, 2020, Judge Leighton granted a motion to dismiss brought by WFSE alone. 2 1 2 See MTD Order, Dkt. No. 29. Judge Leighton WFSE failed because Plaintiff could not show state action under Section 1983, id. at 5 9, nor standing to assert 3 prospective claims for relief, id. at 9 11. He declined, however, to forgo supplemental jurisdiction 4 as the State Defendants had not moved to dismiss. Id. at 12. These 5 Defendants then moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 12(c). , Dkt. No. 31. After briefing on the Motion was completed, this 7 8 9 10 III. LEGAL STANDARD The Court evaluates a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to FRCP 12(c) under 11 the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6). See 12 VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., No. 15-cv-1096, 2020 WL 2307492, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 8, 13 2020) (citing Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012)). Under this standard, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy. Id. (quoting Chavez, 683 F.3d at 1108). Additionally, a district court may dismiss sua sponte any claims on which it . Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). Judge Leighton laid out the applicable standard in greater depth in his previous order. See MTD Order at 4 5. IV. DISCUSSION The undersigned recently granted summary judgment in favor of State and union defendants in a case materially indistinguishable from the one at hand, except for allegation of forgery. See Wagner v. Univ. of Washington, No. 20-cv-00091, 2020 WL 5500371 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2020). More broadly case is one among an avalanche of cases 3 Janus v. 1 2 AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), sought to recover the union dues they paid pursuant 3 to their union membership agreements by claiming First Amendment and Due Process violations. 4 See Wagner, 2020 WL 5500371, at *4 n.2 (listing cases). Every district court to review such 5 claims 6 7 8 9 10 case on largely the same grounds as the Court finds below. A. Standing Plaintiff seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief dues deduction scheme, which is established by a combination of statute, RCW § 41.80.100, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the State as employer and WFSE as 11 representative of the public sector employees. See Compl. ¶ 65. The State Defendants move for 12 claims arguing she lacks standing for such claims as she is no 13 longer having dues deducted from her wages and is, therefore, no longer threatened by her alleged 14 15 16 17 harm of further unlawful deductions 7. Under the Article III standing requirement of the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiff only has standing to , 18 19 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008)). Thus, in order to establish that she has sufficient standing to seek 20 prospective relief, 21 particularized legal harm . . . coupled with a sufficient likelihood that [s]he will again be wronged 22 23 24 25 must show that [s]he has suffered or is threatened with a concrete and Canatella v. State of California, 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th Cir. 2002). As Judge Leighton established in his previous order, Plaintiff fails to show that similar injury is imminent because the prospect of future forgery by WFSE 4 1 such a forgery, is too speculative to support prospective relief. Id. at 10. Plaintiff has already 2 3 has a detailed protocol for electronically enrolling union members and that its has created a specific 4 alert if anyone attempts to reenroll Plaintiff. Id. It is, therefore, unlikely that the State would again 5 out authentic confirmation from Plaintiff. As 6 7 8 9 because she cannot show the likelihood of similar injury in the future. See Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299, No. 19-cv-02382, 2020 WL 4339880, at *4 *5 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2020) (concluding 10 that, notwithstanding an allegation of forgery, the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims for 11 prospective relief because they could not show more than a speculative allegation of future injury 12 based on the possibility of misconduct). 13 B. Section 1983 Claims 14 15 16 17 18 every single district court that has confronted claims materially indistinguishable to those of Plaintiff. See Wagner, 2020 WL 5500371, at *4 n.2 (listing cases). In order to state a claim for relief under Section 1983, Plaintiff must show that she was deprived of a right secured by the 19 Constitution or laws of the United States. Id. at *3 (citing Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., 965 F.3d 20 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2020)). She cannot do so. 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff claims that Janus established a First Amendment right to be free of union dues deductions. See Compl. ¶ 31. Janus, however, spoke only to the deduction of state compelled fees from nonconsenting, non-union members, not union members like Plaintiff. Nothing in Janus the union dues they agreed to pay pursuant 25 5 1 to their membership Cohen v. Cowles Media 2 Co., 501 U.S. 663, 672 (1991). 4 Amendment fail because she was not deprived of a right secured by the First Amendment as Janus 5 did not obviate her contractual commitment pursuant to her original membership agreement. See 6 Thus, Plaintiff tion 1983 claims based on the First 3 Wagner, 2020 WL 5500371, at *3 *4. 7 fail on the same grounds. In order to establish violation of 8 deprived of a 9 10 constitutionally protected liberty or property interest and that such deprivation occurred without 11 proper procedural safeguards. Id. at *5 (citing Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. SFR Investments 12 Pool 1, LLC, 893 F.3d 1136, 1147 (9th Cir. 2018)). Again, Plaintiff fails to establish a deprivation 13 of a right secured by the Fourteenth Amendment because Janus established only protected liberty 14 15 16 17 or property interests for non-union members, not union members like Plaintiff. See Wagner, 2020 WL 5500371, at *4 5. Section 1983 claims based on the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. State Law Claims 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court declines 19 state 20 law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if 21 ; see also MTD Order at 12. 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff pleads (1) a claim for willful withholding of wagers pursuant to RCW 49.52.050 against both WFSE and the State Defendants, Compl. ¶¶ 46 51, and (2) outrage against only WFSE, id. ¶ 52 6 1 2 its previous order, would also fall under a state law cause of action for unfair labor practices under the jurisdiction of the Washington Public Employee Relations Commission. See MTD Order at 2 3 (citing RCW § 41.35.160). As such, the Court finds it appropriate to decline supplemental 4 jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 5 V. 6 7 8 9 10 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Judgment on the Pleadings Defendants. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and orders that this case be DISMISSED. 11 12 DATED this 16th day of September, 2020. 13 _______________________________ BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7
]]>
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.
