Quantcast

Federal judge set to rule on police employee lawsuit against LA, Engineers and Architects Association

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

Federal judge set to rule on police employee lawsuit against LA, Engineers and Architects Association

Lawsuits

A federal judge is set to rule on a lawsuit that a police department employee filed against the City of Los Angeles and the Engineers and Architects Association (EAA) alleging violations of civil and constitutional rights.

Freedom Foundation litigation attorney Timothy Snowball participated in oral arguments this week before Central District of California Judge John Arnold Kronstadt in support of plaintiff Camille Bourque who never signed a membership authorization form with the EAA in the 22 years she worked for the city but the union still deducts from earned wages for agency fees to fund political speech with which she disagrees.

"Judge Kronstadt gave me the opportunity to speak first and it may have been one of those rare occasions when an oral argument may have actually changed the judge's mind,” Snowball said. “We won't know what has happened until he releases his ruling but unlike some arguments that we make in court, Judge Kronstadt seemed very open to our position on many of the issues.”

Agency fees were determined to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 under Janus vs. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

“It's one thing to claim that if someone signs a private agreement, they should be bound by the terms of an agreement but it's something else to say they should be bound by an agreement that doesn't exist,” Snowball told the Southern California Record. “The only reason that EAA and the city of Los Angeles are able to take Camille Bourque’s money for two years without her contractual, authorization or consent is that there is a state law allowing them to do that. But, if they're acting under the sole authority of this state, then they are state actors and there's no reason why the court shouldn't be able to treat them as such for the purposes of the lawsuit.”

Another lawsuit filed by the Freedom Foundation against the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD) was outright dismissed by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter without oral argument.

“It seems that Judge Carter simply adopted the position of the union without giving our side of the case a full analysis,” Snowball said. “While that's unfortunate, the Freedom Foundation exists to fight for the rights of workers. In terms of Dr. Espinoza's first amendment rights, I'm looking forward to starting the process to file his appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

In a third Freedom Foundation lawsuit called Deering v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) 18, Central District of California Judge Dale Susan Fischer delayed oral argument.

“The judge is going to review the Motions to Dismiss just on the papers that had been filed and then decide whether oral argument is necessary or not,” Snowball added. “That’s a case where we're not going to have an opportunity to answer questions. Unfortunately, the judge will wind up ruling just on the briefs. I think that the papers are sufficient to find in our favor but what's beneficial about having an oral argument is we can answer the specific questions the judge has in real-time. Unfortunately, we're not going to have that opportunity in Mr. Deering's case.”

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News