Court Opinion

ID: 9892379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 18:01:01.309899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:16.701266
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLENN LAIRD, individual,                        No.    22-55780

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:21-cv-02313-FLA-AS
 v.

UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES, a                  MEMORANDUM*
labor organization; LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political
subdivision of the State of California; ROB
BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of California,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
               Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 19, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, NGUYEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

      Glenn Laird appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1983 action alleging that the unauthorized deduction of union dues from his pay

violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Janus v. American

Fed’n of State, Cnty., and Mun. Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Wright v.

SEIU Loc. 503, 48 F.4th 1112, 1118 n.3 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct.

749 (2023). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Ochoa v.

Pub. Consulting Grp., Inc., 48 F.4th 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143

S. Ct. 783 (2023). We affirm.

      1.     The district court properly dismissed the section 1983 claims Laird

alleged against his former union United Teachers Los Angeles (“UTLA”). UTLA

did not engage in state action when it relayed the dues authorization to Laird’s

former state employer, the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”).

      Actions by a private actor may be subject to section 1983 liability if the

plaintiff can show that the conduct was “fairly attributable to the State.” Lugar v.

Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). To establish fair attribution, two

prongs must be met: (1) “the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some

right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed the [S]tate or

by a person for whom the State is responsible,” and (2) “the party charged with the

deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor.” Id.

Neither prong is met here.

                                          2
      First, assuming that Laird validly revoked his dues deduction authorization

in June 2020, UTLA’s request that LAUSD continue making deductions violated

state law. See Cal. Educ. Code § 45060(a) (“Any revocation . . . shall be effective

provided the revocation complies with the terms of the written authorization.”).

Thus, UTLA’s alleged misrepresentation was “antithetical to any ‘right or privilege

created by the State.’” Wright, 48 F.4th at 1123 (quoting Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937).

      Second, Laird argues that UTLA is a state actor under the “joint action” or

“governmental nexus” tests. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1140

(9th Cir. 2012). In Belgau v. Inslee, we held that the mere fact that a state

transmits dues payments to a union does not give rise to a section 1983 claim

against the union under the “joint action” test. 975 F.3d 940, 947–49 (9th Cir.

2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2795 (2021). Nor would a state employer’s

“ministerial processing of payroll deductions pursuant to [e]mployees’

authorizations” create sufficient nexus between a state and a union to subject the

union to section 1983 liability. Id. at 947–48 & n.2; see also Wright, 48 F.4th at

1122 & n.6.

      2.      The district court properly dismissed Laird’s nominal damages claim

against the Attorney General because it is barred by Eleventh Amendment

sovereign immunity. We have recognized “that, ‘absent waiver by the State or

valid congressional override,’ state sovereign immunity protects state officer

                                          3
defendants sued in federal court in their official capacities from liability in

damages, including nominal damages.” Platt v. Moore, 15 F.4th 895, 910 (9th Cir.

2021) (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985)). Laird has not

shown waiver by the State or valid congressional override.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           4