November 26, 2020

Volume X, Number 331

Advertisement

November 25, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 24, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Harris v. Quinn: The Future of Mandatory Agency Fees - Recent Developments in the Courts

The United States Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn struck down an Illinois law requiring in-home caregivers paid through Medicaid to pay agency fees to the unions representing them. Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014). The Court held that requiring in-home caregivers, who are considered only partial public employees, to financially support union activities which they do not participate in or support, violated the in-home caregivers' First Amendment right to free expression and association.

The Court distinguished its prior decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education which held that public employees who opted out of union association may still be compelled to pay an agency fee to support union activities that benefit all workers. Harris, 134 S. Ct.at 2634-5; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1997). The Court in Harris found that in-home caregivers are not considered full-fledged public employees, and therefore Abood was not controlling in this case.

The Court reasoned that the caregivers answer to their individual supervisor and not the state, even though the state of Illinois provided the in-home caregivers' wages. In addition, the Court noted that caregivers do not enjoy the same rights and protections from the union as do state employees.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that none of the interests asserted by the state of Illinois are furthered by requiring an agency fee. Accordingly, the Court found that the state of Illinois had no justification for impinging on the First Amendment rights of the caregivers. Although the Court expressed strong discomfort with agency-fee provisions, the Court declined to overrule Abood.

The decision in Harris signifies a change in how similarly situated public employees may challenge mandatory agency fees. It also supports future challenges to the Abood decision, which could prevent public employee unions from collecting agency fees from non-members, including fees that support activities directly concerning non-members.

© 2020 Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.CNational Law Review, Volume IV, Number 325
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Employers are faced with more and more challenges in running their businesses due to the vast number of laws and regulations governing the workplace. An incorrect decision today may cost an employer a tremendous amount of time and money in the future. Our Employment & Labor Practice spans our six offices to provide a team approach to advising and defending employers on the most areas affecting employment, such as disciplinary actions, terminations, reductions-in-force, wage and hour issues, restrictive covenants, employment agreements, and various leave issues.

Our attorneys...

309.676.0400
Advertisement
Advertisement