Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
3Activity
P. 1
9th Circuit's Ruling on Knox v. SEIU Local 1000

9th Circuit's Ruling on Knox v. SEIU Local 1000

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,505 |Likes:
Published by jon_ortiz

More info:

Published by: jon_ortiz on Dec 10, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/09/2011

pdf

text

original

 
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 
D
IANNE
K
NOX
; W
ILLIAM
L.B
LAYLOCK
; R
OBERT
A. C
ONOVER
;E
DWARD
L. D
OBROWOLSKI
, J
R
.;K
ARYN
G
IL
; T
HOMAS
J
ACOB
H
ASS
;P
ATRICK
J
OHNSON
; J
ON
J
UMPER
, OnBehalf of Themselves and theClass They Seek to Represent,No. 08-16645
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
D.C. No.v.2:05-CV-02198-
C
ALIFORNIA
S
TATE
E
MPLOYEES
MCE-KJMA
SSOCIATION
, L
OCAL
1000, S
ERVICE
OPINIONE
MPLOYEES
I
NTERNATIONAL
U
NION
,AFL-CIO-CLC,
 Defendant-Appellant,
andS
TEVE
W
ESTLY
, Controller, State of California,
 Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of CaliforniaMorrison C. England, District Judge, PresidingArgued and SubmittedOctober 9, 2009—San Francisco, CaliforniaFiled December 10, 2010Before: J. Clifford Wallace, David R. Thompson andSidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.
19875
Case: 08-16645 12/10/2010 Page: 1 of 43 ID: 7575454 DktEntry: 24-1
 
Opinion by Judge Thomas;Dissent by Judge Wallace
19876K
NOX
v. C
ALIFORNIA
S
TATE
E
MPLOYEES
A
SSOCIATION
Case: 08-16645 12/10/2010 Page: 2 of 43 ID: 7575454 DktEntry: 24-1
 
COUNSEL
Jeffrey B. Demain, Altshuler Barzon LLP, San Francisco,California, for the defendant-appellant.W. James Young, National Right to Work Legal DefenseFoundation, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
OPINION
THOMAS, Circuit Judge:This appeal presents the question of whether a union isrequired, pursuant to
Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson
, 475U.S. 292 (1986), in addition to an annual fee notice to mem-bers, to send a second notice when adopting a temporary,mid-term fee increase. Under the circumstances presented bythis case, we conclude that a second notice is not required,and we reverse the judgment of the district court.IACongress has long recognized the “important contributionof the union shop to the system of labor relations.”
 Locke v.Karass
, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 798, 803 (2009) (quoting
 Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed.
, 431 U.S. 209, 222 (1977)). TheSupreme Court has underscored this Congressional policy byenforcing the right of a union, as the exclusive collective-
19878K
NOX
v. C
ALIFORNIA
S
TATE
E
MPLOYEES
A
SSOCIATION
Case: 08-16645 12/10/2010 Page: 3 of 43 ID: 7575454 DktEntry: 24-1

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->