A California union forged an employee’s signature on a dues check-off form. This incident, and the outrageous result of the court case it spawned, demonstrate why protections are necessary requiring employee opt-ins for paying union dues.
A federal court in California has held that a union can keep dues it collected illegally by forging a membership card. Even though Maria Quezambra never authorized anyone to deduct dues from her paycheck, United Domestic Workers of America, AFCSME Local 3930, withheld dues from 2013 to 2019. The court has held that Quezambra cannot recover those dues, essentially stripping her of the ability to fully recover damages for the violation of her First Amendment rights.
Quezambra may have a remedy in federal court, but that wouldn’t have been necessary if California had enacted state-level protections. Other states, though, have sought to secure the First Amendment rights of people like her. In Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that an employee’s authorization for dues deductions must be freely given and demonstrated by “clear and compelling evidence.” The court also stated that “such a waiver cannot be presumed.”
Some states have taken steps to comply with these requirements. Alaska, for example, requires unions to obtain an annual opt-in before allowing dues to be deducted. It also requires workers to be provided with a notice of their labor rights before dues deductions can occur. The attorneys general of Texas and Indiana have also issued opinions supporting such standards. Regulators in Michigan, too, have recently proposed rules which, if adopted, would prevent unions from taking advantage of workers through fraudulent means.
Unfortunately, California has not followed in the footsteps of the states seeking to protect the First Amendment of public employees such as Quezambra. As a result, those workers remain at risk from predatory union practices.
In 2012, Quezambra chose to become an in-home care provider to care for her adopted daughter who has mental and developmental disabilities. In California, in-home providers were unionized. Beginning in 2013, the state began deducting union dues from her paycheck based on the union’s claim that she had signed a membership card. In actuality, the union had forged her signature.
California deducted union dues from her paycheck for years until she discovered the unauthorized deductions in 2019. After learning about them, she notified the union of her objections. The union acknowledged that she had not authorized dues deductions and stated it would “discontinue” dues deductions from 2015-2019. The union refused, however, to return the unauthorized dues from 2013-2015, citing the state’s 3-year statute of limitations on dues refunds.
In response, Quezambra contacted the Freedom Foundation, which agreed to assist her in suing the union and the state of California. The legal theory of the case was straightforward: The U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFCSME affirmed that requiring public sector workers to support a union financially violates their First Amendment rights. Therefore, by deducting dues from Quezambra against her will, and by forging a membership card in her name, California and the union had violated her constitutional rights. Given that deductions were the result of California state law, she hoped a court would agree that California and the union were legally responsible for the illegal deductions.
Unfortunately, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California disagreed. In examining the union’s liability, the court applied the “state actor” doctrine, which says a private party can be liable for violating someone’s constitutional rights only if it is acting with the authority of the government. The court rejected the contention that the union’s partnership with the state of California, the state would collect dues for the union, was enough to make it a state actor. The court concluded that the union could not be held liable for constitutional violations.
The court also found that, since California was legally bound to accept a union’s report about which employees were union members, it could not be held liable for wrongful deductions. The court held that deducting the dues was a “ministerial” act and that California had no say in determining whether the deductions were authorized. This is despite the fact that California law is precisely what made the deductions “ministerial.”
The effect of this ruling is simple: Unions can forge membership cards without facing the full consequences for doing so. Even a clear violation of First Amendment rights, perpetrated through fraud, can only be punished (if at all) under state law.
Had California had legal safeguards in place, Quezambra would never have ended up in this situation. If California allowed her to consent to deductions by contacting the state directly, there would have been no unauthorized deductions. If the union had been required to obtain her consent on an annual basis, as several attorneys general around the United States have said Janus requires, she would have noticed the deductions in time to demand the return of all unauthorized dues.
But California has no such safeguards. Instead, the state simply takes the union’s word on whether the deductions it calls for are authorized. Only employees, who are ill-prepared to act as investigators, are able to uncover fraud.
The Quezambra case demonstrates the unfortunate consequences of a system where the First Amendment rights of workers are not adequately protected. Although the Freedom Foundation and Quezambra plan to appeal, there is no guarantee that they will succeed. To prevent such horrendous abuses from occurring in the future, states must pass laws that punish unions that rob workers through fraud. If they don’t, this unfortunate case isn’t likely to be the last.
Steve Delie is the director of labor policy and Workers for Opportunity at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan based research and educational institute.
