The Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD) is still withdrawing membership dues and Political Action Program deductions from a physician’s earned wages after he requested they be stopped, in violation of a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Robert Espinoza, M.D. sued the UAPD in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California after a formal request to disassociate himself from UAPD in December 2020 was ignored.
“Dr. Espinoza has been trying to communicate his preference with them for almost a year,” said Timothy Snowball, an attorney with the Freedom Foundation. “He's had this back and forth dialogue with the union, trying to communicate his preferences in terms of this deduction with them. So, emails, calls, letters, and everything to the point where he had to go all the way and file a lawsuit with us representing him.”
Espinoza is objecting to $217.73 in monthly dues being withdrawn from his wages as a state prison physician as well as $16 deducted per paycheck for its political action fund.
“They are taking this $16 out specifically for the purpose of this political action fund where they're spending money on state politics all over California,” Snowball told the Southern California Record. “They're spending money on local elections, state elections, issue campaigns, including giving money to Gavin Newsom to defeat the effort at a recall.”
Espinoza doesn’t agree with how the deductions from his paycheck are being spent, according to the Nov. 17 complaint.
“It is a basic tenet of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that you cannot be forced to support speech that you do not agree with,” Snowball said. “That is what's at stake here.”
In Janus vs. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2018 that agency fees are unconstitutional.
Espinoza requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter denied after the union agreed to stop the deductions by mid-November. However, the withdrawals continued on Dec. 1 and Espinoza filed a second TRO.
“The system itself seems to be set up in such a way in this area of law to disadvantage plaintiffs and it's really unfortunate because our entire system of government is supposed to rely upon the idea of individual rights and protecting the rights of the individual,” Snowball said.
Carter also denied the second TRO.
“UAPD responds that it intended to rectify its prior error when it received Plaintiff’s Complaint on November 18 but it was too late to make the necessary changes in the State’s payroll system before the December 1 paycheck was sent out,” Carter wrote in his Dec. 6 order. “UAPD further notes that it pre-emptively refunded Plaintiff for the December 1 deduction on November 19.”
Although two TROs have been denied the underlying complaint is proceeding.
“If the union’s shenanigans have continued onto his January 1st paycheck, I think that we will almost certainly be filing a third TRO,” Snowball added. “If it is necessary to file a third TRO in January, the court will have no excuse but to step in and protect Dr. Espinoza’s rights from continued violation.”