Abood v. Detroit Board Of Education

431 U.S. 209 (1977)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Detroit Federation of Teachers (Union) was certified in 1967. The Union and D came to an agreement. It had an 'agency shop' clause, requiring every teacher who had not become a Union member within 60 days of hire to pay the Union a service charge equal to the regular dues required of Union members. A teacher who failed to meet this obligation was subject to discharge. Nothing required any teacher to join the Union, espouse the cause of unionism, or participate in any other way in Union affairs other than to pay the full dues. Ps, teachers, filed a class action alleging in part that the Union was engaged in economic, political, professional, scientific and religious activities in nature of which Ps do not approve, and in which they will have no voice, and which are not and will not be collective bargaining activities, i.e., the negotiation and administration of contracts with D, and that a substantial part of the sums required to be paid are used and will continue to be used for the support of such activities and programs, and not solely for the purpose of defraying the cost of the bargaining activities with D. Ps claimed a deprivation of their freedom of association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ds moved for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Ds moved for summary judgment; the trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Abood and other named teachers (P1s) had filed a separate action in the same state trial court and eventually their case was consolidated with Ps' case. D's renewed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted. Ps appealed. On appeal, the court considered the constitutionality of using compulsory service charges to further 'political purposes' unrelated to collective bargaining. Although recognizing that such expenditures 'could violate plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights,' the court required an employee who seeks to vindicate such rights must 'make known to D those causes and candidates to which he objects.' Since the complaints had failed to allege that any such notification had been given, the court held that Ps were not entitled to restitution of any portion of the service charges. The appellate court reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court of Michigan denied review and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.