Cara O'callaghan; Jenee Misraje v. Janet Napolitano

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARA O'CALLAGHAN; JENEE
MISRAJE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official
capacity as President of the University of
California; TEAMSTERS LOCAL 2010;
ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of California,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.
No. 19-56271
D.C. No.
2:19-cv-02289-JVS-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 8, 2022
Portland, Oregon
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
APR 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before: PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,** District Judge.
Cara O’Callaghan and Jeneé Misraje (“Appellants”) appeal the district
court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss their First Amendment
claims. We affirm.1
1. The trial court correctly determined that the Defendants did not violate
Appellants’ First Amendment rights. Although the First Amendment protects
against compelled association, it does not permit one to renege on voluntary
agreements. Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 951 (9th Cir. 2020). Appellants
affirmatively agreed to join the Union and authorized the University to deduct dues
from their wages pursuant to the terms of their agreements, including terms limiting
when they could withdraw authorization. Additionally, Appellants’ § 1983 claim
against the Union fails for lack of state action under Belgau. Id. at 946–47.
Therefore, Appellants’ First Amendment claim was properly dismissed.
2. The district court did not err in finding that the Union’s good faith
reliance on state and federal precedent shielded it from liability for collecting
agency fees prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, Council
31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). Private entities can raise a good faith affirmative
defense to § 1983 claims when they acted in reliance on binding judicial
** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
1 Teamsters Local 2010’s Motion to Remand or Dismiss (Dkt. No. 44) is denied.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
pronouncements and state law. Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096, 1099–1100 (9th
Cir. 2019). O’Callaghan became a member of the Union prior to Janus, so she only
paid nonmember fees when such fees were permitted. The Union was operating
under state law and binding federal precedent when it collected fees from
O’Callaghan. Therefore, the Union’s good faith defense shields it from liability.
3. The district court correctly held that exclusive Union representation
does not violate Appellants’ First Amendment right to freely associate. Janus
prohibited the collection of agency fees from nonmembers; it did not render unions’
service as exclusive bargaining agents unconstitutional. Mentele v. Inslee, 916 F.3d
783, 789–90 (9th Cir. 2019). Therefore, unions may serve as exclusive
representatives of entire bargaining units without violating the Constitution.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --