Court Opinion

ID: 9490887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:57:45.96827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:22.686764
License: Public Domain

EVANS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join Chief Judge Posner’s splendid opinion in all respects and write separately merely to emphasize my view that the Board’s rejection of the union’s January opt-out window is no more than a hair away from being unreasonable. Only our deferential review, required by Chevron, sanctions the rock the Board has tossed through the window.
In Nielsen, we explained why it is reasonable for a union to employ a window period for former members switching over to an agency fee. Although Nielsen, as Chief Judge Posner notes, arose in a slightly different setting, we nevertheless observed there that “[l]ife is full of deadlines, and we see nothing particularly onerous about this one.” 94 F.3d at 1116. We went on to observe, by way of an example, that when people miss the deadline for filing an appeal with us their rights are lost forever, not just for a few months.
As with litigants, Article III judges live with action windows. The last monthly “employee earnings statement” for 1997 received from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts warned every federal judge in America that:
THE ANNUAL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS OPEN SEASON BEGAN ON NOVEMBER 10, 1997 AND WILL END ON DECEMBER 8, 1997.
THE TSP [Thrift Savings Plan] OPEN SEASON BEGAN ON NOVEMBER 15, 1997 AND WILL END ON JANUARY 31,1998.
Given the overwhelming acceptance of deadlines and window periods analogous to the one in this case, it is baffling to me why the Board looked with disfavor on the union’s position. I think it’s a shame that Chevron prevents us from rejecting the Board’s view.