��ݮ��ƵAPP����

Legal Principle at Issue

Does the fair share provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the state of Illinois and the union representative violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association of personal assistants who are not members of the union? Are the claims of the Disability Program plaintiffs ripe for judicial review?

Action

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that mandatory union fees for “partial public employees” violate the First Amendment. The Court made a distinction between full-fledged public employees, like teachers or police officers, who had been covered by the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, and "partial public employees" like Harris, who were hired and supervised privately but paid by the state. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that forcing these workers to pay fees violated their right to free speech, especially since the union's bargaining with the state could involve political issues.

Facts/Syllabus

The case involved home healthcare workers in Illinois who were paid by the state but hired and supervised by individual patients. The state's Home Services Program allows Medicaid recipients who would normally need institutional care to hire a “personal assistant” (PA) to provide homecare services. Under Illinois law, the homecare recipients (designated “customers”) and the state both play some role in the employment relationship with the PAs. Customers control most aspects of the employment relationship, including hiring, firing, training, supervising, and disciplining. They also define the PA’s duties by proposing a “Service Plan.” Other than compensating PAs, the state’s involvement in employment matters is minimal. Illinois had designated these workers as “public employees” for collective bargaining purposes, allowing the Service Employees International Union to represent them. While workers didn’t have to join the union, they were required to pay “fair share” fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining. 

Pamela Harris, one of the home care workers, objected to paying these fees, arguing that being forced to financially support a union she didn’t agree with violated her First Amendment rights.

Importance of Case

The Court's ruling narrowed the scope of Abood and laid the groundwork for a more sweeping decision four years later in Janus v. AFSCME, which overturned Abood entirely, ruling that no public employee can be required to pay agency fees to a union.