Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court throws out ruling in case protecting unions from class-action lawsuits
Washington Examiner ^ | July 02, 2018 | Sean Higgins

Posted on 07/03/2018 7:00:04 AM PDT by GonzoII

Organized labor, already reeling from a potentially major financial hit thanks to a Supreme Court ruling last week that could result in millions of public-sector workers cutting off funding, could be subject to another blow from the justices: class-action suits from those workers seeking to get paid back from the unions.

In a little-noticed action, the Supreme Court invalidated a ruling last week by the 7th Circuit Court denying class-action certification in a case called Riffey v. Rauner. The case involved nonunion state-subsidized Illinois home healthcare workers seeking to be repaid the funds that for years they were forced to give to the union that ostensibly represented them.

The justices in effect told the lower court to do it again in light of their ruling last week in the case Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Janus found that coerced dues from nonunion public-sector workers were unconstitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: 7thcircuit; 7thcircuitcourt; 7thcircus; afscme; classaction; classactionsuits; illinois; lawsuit; lawsuits; obstructionofjustice; riffeyvrauner; ruling; scotus; seiu; suits; supremecourt; union; unions; winning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

1 posted on 07/03/2018 7:00:04 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Wow. This could effectively break the unions.


2 posted on 07/03/2018 7:03:38 AM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

whooopsadaisy


3 posted on 07/03/2018 7:03:57 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

I thought last weeks ruling did not apply to unions in the private sector.


4 posted on 07/03/2018 7:04:54 AM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Big Unions are 0-2 this summer. Last week it was, “No longer can they require dues from those in the public sector who are not members and do not wish to pay.”


5 posted on 07/03/2018 7:05:31 AM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

More Winning!!!!


6 posted on 07/03/2018 7:07:50 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Wow. This could effectively break the unions.

Or, at the very least, slow the firehose funding to Democrats!

7 posted on 07/03/2018 7:08:42 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

:D


8 posted on 07/03/2018 7:09:23 AM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Whoo-hoo!

The union thugs may not get to keep all that money they stole from non-union members!

They should have thought of that years ago. This could be billions and billions of dollars having to be paid back.

This may bankrupt unions.


9 posted on 07/03/2018 7:12:14 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

:)


10 posted on 07/03/2018 7:13:01 AM PDT by READINABLUESTATE (A progressive liberalsÂ’ happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy
"The case involved nonunion state-subsidized Illinois home healthcare workers seeking to be repaid the funds that for years they were forced to give to the union that ostensibly represented them."

This is yuge!

11 posted on 07/03/2018 7:13:05 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Yes. But the ruling last week only applied to public unions. Daycare workers are not in a public union. Confusing. I do hope this expands to private sector unions.


12 posted on 07/03/2018 7:15:05 AM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Winning.


13 posted on 07/03/2018 7:17:09 AM PDT by bgill (CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Wow, talk about a major ruling initially flying under the radar!


14 posted on 07/03/2018 7:17:24 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

I see your point. The home healthcare workers might have been classified as state employees.


15 posted on 07/03/2018 7:18:44 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

“I thought last weeks ruling did not apply to unions in the private sector.”

This action is against a public sector union. Rauner is the Governor of Illinois.

And this could bankrupt them.

L


16 posted on 07/03/2018 7:19:02 AM PDT by Lurker (President Trump isn't our last chance. President Trump is THEIR last chance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

I don’t believe so. Here in Minnesota there was a push to get the home daycare people to unionize. Governor Goofy Dayton was pushing it if I remember right. These would not be considered state employees.


17 posted on 07/03/2018 7:21:08 AM PDT by shelterguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy

“Daycare workers are not in a public union.“

Here in Illinois they were forced by law to pay dues money to a public sector union, most of them quite against their will. This suit seeks repayment of dues forcibly extracted from the plaintiffs.

L


18 posted on 07/03/2018 7:21:09 AM PDT by Lurker (President Trump isn't our last chance. President Trump is THEIR last chance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
WINNING!!!!!!!!........................
19 posted on 07/03/2018 7:21:46 AM PDT by Red Badger (July 2018 - the month the world discovered the TRUTH......Q Anon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy
As I understand it, this is a different, separate case, and did not involve a "ruling" on the substance of it. The Supremes simply authorized the plaintiffs to bring their case as a class-action suit.

So that opens the door.

They still have to go through the whole appellate shebang. But they have permission to start.

So YAY and let's see what happens.

20 posted on 07/03/2018 7:23:16 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (What people will submit to, equals the exact measure of injustice which will be imposed upon them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson