Harris v. Quinn

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Harris v. Quinn
7th Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 570 U.S.
948 (2013).
Holding
The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from Rehabilitation Program PAs who do not want to join or support the union
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
DissentKagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a

Janus v AFSCME,[1] overturning the Court's unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
(1977) which the appeals court had upheld in Harris.

Facts

The

SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana, which bargained with the state, after it was awarded exclusive representation of the caregivers following a card check election in 2003. The election was made possible by an executive order [2] by then-Governor Rod Blagojevich, who had been heavily supported by SEIU in his 2002 election. The order reversed a 1985 ruling by a state labor board that said the workers were not state employees. While SEIU claimed to have signed cards representing majority support of the workers, the state has not been able to prove [3]
that it ever properly verified the vote.

Eight home health care workers objected to paying union security fees, and challenged the law on this ground. Pamela Harris was the lead petitioner in the case, who was paid by the state to care for her own son. She objected to being obligated to pay dues to the SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana union even though she chose not to join the union.[4]

The District court dismissed their claim, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision, following Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.[5]

Judgment

The Court ruled that the workers could not be compelled to join the union since they were not fully-fledged state employees, as they are hired or fired by individual patients even if they are paid by Medicaid. The ruling did not invalidate compulsory union membership for the larger population of public employees, but Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion argued that Abood v. Detroit Board of Education was erroneously decided.[6][7]

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, arguing that the principle in the Abood ruling should have been used in the case.[8]

Significance

The majority's opinion in Harris v. Quinn was largely condemned by labor unions, worker rights organizations[

Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.[9]

See also

References

  1. ^ Janus v. AFSCME, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018),
  2. ^ "Government". Illinois.gov. Retrieved July 10, 2018.
  3. ^ "New questions raised about decision to let SEIU represent Illinois home health care workers". Illinoispolicy.org. January 27, 2014. Retrieved July 10, 2018.
  4. ^ Pilkington, Ed (June 30, 2014). "Harris v Quinn: US supreme court deals blow to unions in fees ruling". The Guardian. Retrieved July 10, 2018.
  5. ^ Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).
  6. ^ "For unions, not a fatal verdict". Politico.com. June 30, 2014. Retrieved July 10, 2018.
  7. ^ "Workers handed a victory over unions: Column". Usatoday.com. Retrieved July 10, 2018.
  8. ^ Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014).
  9. ^ C Estlund and WE Forbath (July 2, 2014). "The War on Workers: The Supreme Court Ruling on Harris v. Quinn Is a Blow for Unions". The New York Times.

External links