Connell

Cummings v. Connell

Good Law
177 F. Supp. 2d 1060·2001 WL 1402186·170 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2798·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23021
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 2, 2001CIV.S-99-2176 WBSDADCalifornia8,361 words

Opinion

Opinion

Shubb, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Named plaintiffs represent a class of state employees organized in bargaining units represented by defendant California State Employees Association, Local 1000 (“CSEA” or “the union”). Plaintiffs, who are not union members, allege that CSEA has been improperly withholding a portion of union dues from their paychecks without providing them with the procedural safeguards mandated by Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 , 106 S.Ct. 1066 , 89 L.Ed.2d 232 (1986). In addition, plaintiffs claim that the indemnification provision contained in the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the State of California is void as against public policy. Both plaintiffs and defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

I. Procedural and Factual Background

CSEA is the exclusive representative for collective bargaining purposes of all employees in bargaining units 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21. In March 1999, defendants Morgenstern and CSEA entered into collective bargaining agreements allowing the state employer to deduct and forward “fair share” fees from plaintiffs’ (“fee payers” or “nonmembers”) paychecks…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.