Harris v. Quinn

134 S.Ct.2618 (2014)

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

A Federal Medicaid program funds state-run programs that provide in-home services to individuals whose conditions would otherwise require institutionalization. D created the Illinois Department of Human Services Home Services Program (Rehabilitation Program.) Participants can hire a “personal assistant” who provides home care services tailored to the individual’s needs. Many of these personal assistants are relatives of the person receiving care, and some of them provide care in their own homes. Illinois law establishes an employer-employee relationship between the person receiving the care and the person providing it. Under this program the customer “is responsible for controlling all aspects of the employment relationship between the customer and the [personal assistant (or PA)], including, without limitation, locating and hiring the PA, training the PA, directing, evaluating and otherwise supervising the work performed by the personal assistant, imposing . . . disciplinary action against the PA, and terminating the employment relationship between the customer and the PA.” D pays the personal assistants’ salaries. Other than providing compensation, the State’s role is comparatively small. D sets some basic threshold qualifications for employment. D mandates an annual performance review by the customer, helps the customer conduct that review, and mediates disagreements between customers and their personal assistants and suggests certain duties and a D employee must “identify the appropriate level of service provider” “based on the customer’s approval of the initial Service Plan,” and must sign each customer’s Service Plan. The Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (PLRA) authorizes state employees to join labor unions and to bargain collectively on the terms and conditions of employment. Under a “fair share” provision, the law requires employees covered by the agreement who are not members of the organization to pay their proportionate share of the costs of the collective-bargaining process, contract administration and pursuing matters affecting wages, hours and conditions of employment.” SEIU allegedly represents personal assistants employed by customers. Ps were required to pay fees to the union. Ps filed a putative class action on behalf of all Rehabilitation Program personal assistants. Ps claimed the fair-share provision of the PLRA violates the First Amendment. The District Court dismissed their claims with prejudice, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed concluding that the case was controlled by Abood. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.