Donohue v. Milan Donohue v. Milan N.Y.S. Thruway Emps. v. N.Y.S. Thruway ( 2019 )

17‐2832‐cv, 17‐2833‐cv, 17‐2834‐cv
Donohue v. Milan; Donohue v. Milan; N.Y.S. Thruway Emps. v. N.Y.S. Thruway Auth.
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
3
4 August Term, 2018
5
6 (Argued: March 13, 2019 Decided: November 18, 2019)
7
8 Docket Nos. 17‐2832‐cv, 17‐2833‐cv, 17‐2834‐cv
9
10 _____________________________________
11
12 DANNY DONOHUE, AS PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
13 ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL‐CIO, CIVIL SERVICE
14 EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL‐CIO, JOHN
15 DELLIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
16 SITUATED, MICHAEL BOULERIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
17 ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAUREEN ALONZO, INDIVIDUALLY
18 AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARCOS
19 DIAMANTATOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
20 SIMILARLY SITUATED,
21
22 Plaintiffs‐Appellees,
23
24 v.
25
26 CARLOS MILAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF
27 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND EMPLOYEE SAFETY, NEW YORK STATE
28 THRUWAY AUTHORITY AND NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION,
29 HOWARD P. MILSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
30 AS CHAIRMAN OF NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY/CANAL CORPORATION
31 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DONNA J. LUH, INDIVIDUALLY, E. VIRGIL
32 CONWAY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF NEW
33 YORK STATE THRUWAY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
34 RICHARD N. SIMBERG, INDIVIDUALLY, BRANDON R. SALL,
35 INDIVIDUALLY, J. DONALD RICE, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, JOSE HOLGUIN‐
36 VERAS, INDIVIDUALLY, NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY,
1
2 Defendants‐Appellants,
3
4 THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
5 CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE
6 THRUWAY AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK STATE CANAL
7 CORPORATION,
8
9 Defendants.
10
11 _____________________________________
12
13 DANNY DONOHUE, AS PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
14 ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL‐CIO, CIVIL SERVICE
15 EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL‐CIO,
16 WILLIAM COLEMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
17 SIMILARLY SITUATED, WILLIAM MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
18 BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOHN METZGIER,
19 INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
20 JACK WIEDEMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
21 SIMILARLY SITUATED,
22
23 Plaintiffs‐Appellees,
24
25 JOHN DELLIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
26 SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHAEL BOULERIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
27 BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAUREEN ALONZO,
28 INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
29 MARCOS DIAMANTATOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
30 OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
31 EMPLOYEES LOCAL 72, JOSEPH E. COLOMBO, GEORGE E. SAVOIE, DAVID
32 M. MAZZEO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
33 SIMILARLY SITUATED,
34
35 Plaintiffs,
36
2
1 v.
2
3 CARLOS MILAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
4 DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND EMPLOYEE SAFETY, NEW
5 YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY AND NEW YORK STATE CANAL
6 CORPORATION, BRIAN U. STRATTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
7 OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE CANAL
8 CORPORATION, HOWARD P. MILSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
9 OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
10 AUTHORITY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, E. VIRGIL
11 CONWAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD
12 MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY/CANAL CORPORATION
13 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, NEW
14 YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION, DONNA J. LUH, INDIVIDUALLY
15 AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE‐CHAIRMAN NEW YORK
16 STATE THRUWAY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND
17 IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE‐CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK STATE
18 THRUWAY AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, RICHARD N. SIMBERG,
19 INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF
20 THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF
21 DIRECTORS AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF
22 THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, BRANDON R. SALL,
23 INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF
24 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF
25 DIRECTORS AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF
26 THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, J. DONALD RICE, JR.,
27 INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF
28 THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF
29 DIRECTORS, JOSE HOLGUIN‐VERAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
30 OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF NEW YORK STATE
31 THRUWAY/CANAL CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND IN HIS
32 OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK STATE
33 THRUWAY AUTHORITY,
34
35 Defendants‐Appellants,
36
3
1 THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
2 CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE
3 THRUWAY AUTHORITY AND THE NEW YORK STATE CANAL
4 CORPORATION,
5
6 Defendant.
7
8 _____________________________________
9
10 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 72, JOSEPH E.
11 COLOMBO, GEORGE SAVOIE, DAVID M. MAZZEO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
12 ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
13
14 Plaintiffs‐Appellees,
15
16 v.
17
18 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, HOWARD P. MILSTEIN,
19 INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
20 NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, THOMAS RYAN, IN HIS
21 OFFICIAL CAPACITY, E. VIRGIL CONWAY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
22 BOARD MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY,
23 BRANDON R. SALL, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF
24 THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, JOHN F. BARR, IN HIS
25 OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OF
26 THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, DONNA J. LUH, IN HER
27 OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE‐CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK STATE
28 THRUWAY AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, RICHARD N. SIMBERG,
29 IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK
30 STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, J. DONALD RICE, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL
31 CAPACITY AS BOARD MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
32 AUTHORITY, JOSE HOLGUIN‐VERAS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
33 BOARD MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY,
34
35 Defendants‐Appellants,
36
4
1 THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
2 CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE
3 THRUWAY AUTHORITY, JOHN M. BRYAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
4 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND TREASURER OF THE NEW YORK STATE
5 THRUWAY AUTHORITY, JOSEPH BRESS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
6 OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF NEGOTIATOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE
7 THRUWAY AUTHORITY, HOWARD GLASER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
8 OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF STATE OPERATIONS AND SENIOR
9 POLICY ADVISOR TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, DONALD R. BELL,
10 INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF
11 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
12 AUTHORITY,
13
14 Defendants.
15
16 _____________________________________
17
18 Before:
19
20 WESLEY, LOHIER, and SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
21
22 In this appeal, we consider whether State Employees Bargaining Agent
23 Coalition v. Rowland, which held that union activity is protected by the First
24 Amendment right to freedom of association and that heightened scrutiny applies
25 to employment decisions that target an employee “based on union membership,”
26 718 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2013), extends to agency fee payors (AFPs), who are not
27 union members, based solely on the fact that AFPs are represented by a union
28 during collective bargaining. We hold that First Amendment protections apply
29 to union members but do not extend to AFPs based on union representation
30 alone. We therefore VACATE and REMAND the District Court’s order as it
31 applies to AFPs but AFFIRM the District Court’s order as it applies to union
32 members.
33
34 BETH A. BOURASSA (Christopher W. Meyer,
35 Norma G. Meacham, Monica R. Skanes, on
5
1 the brief), Whiteman Osterman & Hanna
2 LLP, Albany, NY, for Defendants‐Appellants.
3
4 AARON E. KAPLAN (Daren J. Rylewicz,
5 Jennifer C. Zegarelli, on the brief), Civil
6 Service Employees Association, Inc.,
7 Albany, NY, for Plaintiffs‐Appellees in
8 Donohue et al. v. Milan et al., 17‐2832‐cv,
9 Donohue et al. v. Milan et al., 17‐2833‐cv.
10
11 GREGG D. ADLER (Nicole M. Rothgeb, on the
12 brief), Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn
13 & Kelly, P.C., Hartford, CT, for Plaintiffs‐
14 Appellees in N.Y. State Thruway Emps. Local
15 72 et al. v. N.Y. State Thruway Authority et
16 al., 17‐2834‐cv.
17 LOHIER, Circuit Judge:
18 In State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition v. Rowland, we held that
19 union activity is protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of
20 association and that heightened scrutiny therefore applies to employment
21 decisions that target an employee “based on union membership.” 718 F.3d 126,
22 134 (2d Cir. 2013). Many of the plaintiffs in this case are union members and
23 thus clearly enjoy First Amendment protections based on their voluntary
24 association with a union. But a small subset of the plaintiffs are non‐union
25 members called agency fee payors (AFPs). The main question here is whether, in
6
1 light of Rowland, the AFPs’ First Amendment rights are protected solely because
2 the AFPs are represented by a union during collective bargaining.
3 In an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, the
4 United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Scullin, J.)
5 interpreted our decision in Rowland to mean that strict scrutiny applies to a
6 public employer’s decision to fire both union members and AFPs because they
7 are represented by unions during collective bargaining. Donohue v. Madison
8 (“Donohue I”), No. 1:13‐CV‐918 (FJS) (CFH), 2017 WL 2171276, at *3–6 (N.D.N.Y.
9 Apr. 14, 2017). The District Court ultimately certified its order for interlocutory
10 appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Donohue v. Madison (“Donohue II”),
11 No. 1:13‐CV‐918 (FJS) (CFH), 2017 WL 3206326, at *4–5 (N.D.N.Y. July 27, 2017).
12 On appeal, we conclude that the AFPs’ First Amendment right to association was
13 not protected solely because the AFPs were represented by the union during
14 collective bargaining. We therefore VACATE and REMAND the District Court’s
15 order as it applies to AFPs but AFFIRM the District Court’s order as it applies to
16 union members.
7
1 BACKGROUND
2 1. Facts
3 The New York State Thruway Authority (the Authority) finances,
4 reconstructs, and operates the New York State Thruway and New York’s canal
5 system. For a number of years, the Authority faced significant financial
6 pressures, including mounting debt due to the repair of aging infrastructure and
7 rising health insurance costs for employees. In response, the Authority
8 implemented cost‐saving measures, including freezing salary increases for its
9 non‐unionized employees from 2009 to 2012. In 2012 the Authority’s credit
10 rating fell as it prepared to finance a replacement for the Tappan Zee Bridge. The
11 Authority sought recurring operational cost reductions from its union‐
12 represented employees by getting concessions from its unions during
13 negotiations over new collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).
14 The Authority recognized three unions as the bargaining agents for four
15 separate bargaining units of employees. New York law and the CBAs made
16 anyone who accepted an Authority position in a bargaining unit a “union‐
17 represented” employee. See N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 204(2). Union‐represented
18 employees in turn were divided into two groups: union members who had
8
1 signed a union membership card; and AFPs, who were not union members but
2 were still represented by unions in collective bargaining. In accordance with
3 then‐governing law, see Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 235–42
4 (1977), overruled by Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., 138 S. Ct.
5 2448 (2018), AFPs were obligated to pay fees to support collective bargaining but
6 could object to having their fees used to support the unions’ political and
7 ideological projects and, if they objected, receive a prorated refund.1
8 Beginning in 2012, the Authority warned both the unions and union‐
9 represented employees that layoffs might result from the unions’ refusal to make
10 certain concessions with respect to the CBAs. After talks broke down, the
11 Authority, true to its word, implemented a reduction in force (RIF). The RIF
12 terminated only union‐represented employees—218 union members and thirteen
13 AFPs—eliminating a total of 231 full‐time positions apportioned among the four
14 bargaining units.
1In accordance with Abood, the unions asked AFPs to advise them if they were
unwilling to have their union fees expended on political and ideological activities. See
Abood, 431 U.S. at 237–41. Under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Janus, a union
may no longer extract any fee from an AFP absent the AFP’s affirmative consent. 138 S.
Ct. at 2486.
9
1 Plaintiffs‐appellees New York State Thruway Employees, Teamsters Local
2 72 (the Teamsters) and Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000,
3 AFSCME, AFL‐CIO (CSEA) are two of the unions recognized by the Authority,
4 and together they represent the vast majority of the 231 employees who were
5 laid off.
6 2. Procedural History
7 Following the RIF, the Plaintiffs sued the Authority and a number of state
8 officials (together, the Defendants) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law,
9 alleging that the termination of union‐represented employees violated the
10 employees’ First Amendment right to associate. Donohue I, 2017 WL 2171276, at
11 *2. After the Plaintiffs moved for class certification, the parties, each relying on
12 Rowland, cross‐moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ First
13 Amendment claim. Id. at *1. Describing Rowland as “fundamentally concerned
14 with the use of targeted layoffs to penalize and pressure the bargaining coalition
15 to accept the defendantsʹ concessions to sign a new CBA,” the District Court
16 concluded that heightened scrutiny applied to employment decisions based on
17 union representation without regard to whether the affected employees were
18 union members. Id. at *6. The court denied summary judgment because
10
1 material factual disputes remained with respect to whether the RIF was narrowly
2 tailored to serve a vital state interest. Id. at *6–8.
3 The Defendants moved for reconsideration, arguing that heightened
4 scrutiny did not apply to all union‐represented employees and that, in any event,
5 the Plaintiffs had failed to show that union‐represented employees were targeted
6 because of their association with a union. Donohue II, 2017 WL 3206326, at *1.
7 Although the District Court denied the motion, it certified to this Court the
8 following question: “Under Rowland, are ‘union‐represented individuals during
9 the bargaining process’—consisting of both union members and agency fee shop
10 payors—a protected class, such that employment decisions based on employees’
11 union representation during collective bargaining are subject to strict scrutiny?”
12 Id. at *5. In certifying the question, the District Court also clarified that
13 “Plaintiffs [would] have to establish causation at trial.” Id. at *3.
14 The Plaintiffs’ only unresolved motion before the District Court, for class
15 certification, remains pending since we stayed all District Court proceedings
16 when we granted the Defendants’ motion for leave to appeal the District Court’s
17 interlocutory order.
11
1 DISCUSSION
2 1. The Certified Question
3 When a district court certifies a question of controlling law pursuant to 28
4 U.S.C. § 1292(b), we “assume jurisdiction over the entire order, not merely over
5 the question as framed by the district court.” City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A.
6 Corp., 524 F.3d 384, 392 (2d Cir. 2008); see Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v.
7 Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 204–05 (1996). We can therefore review “any issue fairly
8 included within the certified order,” Cal. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. WorldCom,
9 Inc., 368 F.3d 86, 95 (2d Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted), and “consider a
10 question different than the one certified as controlling,” Yamaha, 516 U.S. at 205
11 (quotation marks omitted); see also 16 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL
12 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION § 3929 (3d ed. 2019) (“The court may . . .
13 consider any question reasonably bound up with the certified order, whether it is
14 antecedent to, broader or narrower than, or different from the question specified
15 by the district court.”).
16 The District Court applied heightened scrutiny to the Defendants’
17 termination of AFPs based on their union representation. Donohue I, 2017 WL
18 2171276, at *6. On appeal, the Plaintiffs similarly argue for the extension of First
12
1 Amendment protections to AFPs based entirely on the fact that a union
2 represented them in collective bargaining. At oral argument, however, the
3 Plaintiffs also expressly disclaimed any argument that the AFPs are protected
4 under a theory of First Amendment associational rights in this case. We
5 therefore leave that question for another day and consider a slightly modified
6 question on appeal: “Under Rowland, do employees enjoy First Amendment
7 protections merely because they are represented by a union during collective
8 bargaining such that an employment decision based on that representation is
9 subject to strict scrutiny?” Our answer to the modified question is no. At the
10 same time, we reaffirm that strict scrutiny applies to employment decisions
11 based on an employee’s status as a union member.2
2The Plaintiffs also brought an Equal Protection claim that the District Court
“analyze[d] . . . together” with the First Amendment targeting claim because it viewed
the claims as “rais[ing] identical issues.” See Donohue I, 2017 WL 2171276 at *2 n.5, *3.
The District Court’s holding relied entirely on its interpretation of Rowland. See id. at
*6; see also Donohue II, 2017 WL 3206326 at *2–3, 4. Thus, since we find that under
Rowland employees do not enjoy First Amendment protections merely because they are
represented by a union during collective bargaining, we need not address whether
Plaintiffs’ termination violated the Equal Protection Clause here. On remand, the
District Court should revisit the Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim in light of this
opinion.
13
1 2. The First Amendment
2 As to both AFPs and union members, we start and end our analysis with
3 Rowland. There we explained that conditioning public employment on union
4 membership inhibited an employee’s fundamental right to associate with a union
5 and therefore triggered heightened scrutiny. Rowland, 718 F.3d at 133–34. We
6 have previously explained that public employment decisions that do not
7 implicate a fundamental right are subject to rational basis review, a standard that
8 requires only “a nexus between legitimate government ends falling within
9 constitutionally permissible powers, and a means not prohibited by the
10 Constitution to achieve them.” Zalewska v. Cty. of Sullivan, 316 F.3d 314, 322
11 (2d Cir. 2003). Our holding in Rowland flows from the principle that the First
12 Amendment protects “the practice of persons sharing common views banding
13 together to achieve a common end.” N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458
14 U.S. 886, 907 (1982) (quotation marks omitted). But Rowland did not say that
15 being represented by a labor union during collective bargaining by itself
16 conferred First Amendment protection and the heightened scrutiny that comes
17 with it. See Rowland, 718 F.3d at 132–34. To be sure, collective bargaining
18 activities implicate the First Amendment right to freedom of association because
14
1 these activities represent the “common end” of a union’s collective efforts.
2 Claiborne, 458 U.S. at 907; see also Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622
3 (1984); Rowland, 718 F.3d at 132–34. We therefore examine those activities to
4 determine if the right has been violated. But we have never held that anyone
5 who is represented during collective bargaining is for that reason alone entitled
6 to First Amendment protection from government interference, and we decline to
7 do so now.
8 A. AFPs
9 As noted above, the Plaintiffs, echoing the District Court, nevertheless
10 argue that the AFPs were protected by the First Amendment solely because a
11 union represented them during collective bargaining. But we disagree that an
12 employee enjoys First Amendment protections merely because the employee,
13 like each AFP in this case, is represented by a union during collective bargaining.
14 If that were true, then any person represented by an organization involved in an
15 activity of political, cultural, religious, or economic importance would receive
16 First Amendment protection based on the right to engage in expressive
17 association. That is obviously not the case: When determining whether a person
18 represented by an organization may lay claim to an associational right, we
15
1 consider whether that person has engaged with others in a “collective effort on
2 behalf of shared goals.” Roberts, 468 U.S. at 622. Although for purposes of
3 making that determination not all AFPs are similarly situated, as the Plaintiffs
4 appear to presuppose, crucially, all AFPs are represented by the union not
5 because of their choice to engage with the union, but by operation of New York
6 law and the terms of the CBAs. Consequently, AFPs who affirmatively
7 disassociated with a union by objecting to paying for a union’s political and
8 ideological projects but who continued to be represented by the union during
9 collective bargaining could not claim that an adverse employment action
10 interfered with their right to associate with the union. In extending Rowland to
11 all AFPs purely because they were represented by a union in collective
12 bargaining, the District Court went too far.
13 For these reasons, we conclude that AFPs do not have a First Amendment
14 right to freedom of association merely because they are represented by a union
15 during collective bargaining.3 We therefore remand this case to the District
16 Court to determine whether the layoffs of the thirteen AFPs were justified under
3Again, the Plaintiffs here have affirmatively disclaimed that the AFPs have any
associational rights based on their engagement in a collective effort with union
members.
16
1 rational basis review. See Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Assʹn, 555 U.S. 353, 359
2 (2009); Kraham v. Lippman, 478 F.3d 502, 506 (2d Cir. 2007). In doing so, we
3 recognize, as the District Court did, that on remand “it is highly likely that
4 Defendantsʹ decision to terminate [union‐represented] employees would pass
5 rational basis review.” Donohue II, 2017 WL 3206326, at *4. But we think the
6 District Court is better positioned to consider that question in the first instance.
7 B. Union Members
8 The termination of those Plaintiffs who are union members is another
9 matter altogether. Under Rowland, union members clearly enjoy a First
10 Amendment right to associate in labor unions. See Rowland, 718 F.3d at 134
11 (noting the “well‐established principle that union activity is protected by the
12 First Amendment”). The Authority itself acknowledges as much. See
13 Appellants’ Br. 21–22. If the Authority terminated the union members because of
14 their union membership—a factual question the District Court decided to let a
15 jury determine—then strict scrutiny applies to its employment decision. We
16 therefore affirm the District Court’s decision as it applies to those Plaintiffs who
17 are union members.
17
1 CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is
3 AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part. Our previous
4 stay of all proceedings in the District Court, including the Plaintiffs’ motion for
5 class certification, is hereby lifted. On remand, the District Court should
6 consider whether to certify a class limited to the union members alone, consistent
7 with this opinion.
18