Connell

Cummings v. Connell

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 16, 200503-17095California4,611 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Facts

This is the second time this case has been on appeal. A detailed description of the facts underlying this case is set out in Cummings v. Connell, 316 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Cummings I”). We briefly summarize them here. Defendant California State Employees Association, Local 1000, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC is the exclu- sive representative for nine bargaining units of California state employees. The seven named plaintiffs are nonunion employees of the State of California. Although the plaintiffs have no affiliation with the Union, the state deducts agency “fair share” fees from their paychecks to cover their share of the collective bargaining process between the state and the Union.1 Plaintiffs brought a class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of 37,000 nonunion members alleging that the Union was improperly withholding the agency fees with- out providing the procedural safeguards mandated by the 1 Because all employees benefit from a union’s representation during the collective bargaining process, the Supreme Court has held that nonunion members constitutionally may be compelled to contribute their pro rata share of the costs…

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.