Harris v. Quinn

Background

Three personal assistants who provide Medicaid-funded in-home care for people with disabilities challenged an Illinois law that treated such caregivers as public employees only for union representation. The State recognized a union as the exclusive bargaining agent and a collective-bargaining agreement required nonmembers to pay a "fair share" fee, which was deducted from their Medicaid payments. The caregivers sued, saying the fee forces them to subsidize speech they oppose.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the First Amendment allows a State to compel these caregivers to fund union speech. The majority said no. It refused to extend the old public-employee rule from Abood to workers who are not full-fledged state employees, noting that customers (the people receiving care) control hiring, supervision, and day-to-day work while the State’s role is limited. The Court held that forcing nonmembers to pay the fee is a significant burden on free speech and that Illinois did not show a compelling interest that could not be met by less restrictive means.

Real world impact

The decision bars Illinois from collecting agency fees from in-home caregivers who do not wish to join or support the union. The Court confined the Abood rule to full-fledged public employees, so states that treat subsidized private caregivers similarly may need to revise those programs. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kagan, joined by three Justices, dissented, arguing that Illinois jointly employs the caregivers, that the State controls key wage and benefit terms, and that Abood should allow fair-share fees here.