Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Bierman v. Dayton

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

February 14, 2018, Submitted; August 14, 2018, Filed

No. 17-1244

Opinion

 [*572]  COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

In 2013, Minnesota [**2]  enacted a statute that extended the state's Public Employment Labor Relations Act ("PELRA") to persons who provide in-home care to disabled Medicaid recipients. See Individual Providers of Direct Support Services Representation Act, ch. 128, art. 2, 2013 Minn. Laws 2173 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.54, 256B.0711). PELRA authorizes covered employees to organize and to designate by majority vote an exclusive representative to negotiate employment terms with the state. Minn. Stat. § 179A.06, subdiv. 2.

A group of parents who provide homecare services to their disabled children sued several state officials and a union, alleging that the 2013 Act violates the homecare providers' freedom of association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They complain that the Act unconstitutionally compels them to associate with the exclusive negotiating representative. The district court,3 relying on Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 104 S. Ct. 1058, 79 L. Ed. 2d 299 (1984), determined that the 2013 Act does not infringe on the providers' First Amendment rights. We agree with the application of Knight, and therefore affirm the judgment for the defendants.

] PELRA allows public employees to organize by selecting an exclusive representative to "meet and confer" and "meet and negotiate" with the State regarding terms and conditions of employment. Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.06, 179A.07. If public [**3]  employees select a representative, then the state employer must confer and negotiate exclusively with the representative union. Id. § 179A.07, subdivs. 2-3. Employees, however, need not join the union, id. § 179A.06, subdiv. 2, and they remain free to communicate with the State independent of the exclusive representative, so long as their activity "is not designed to and does not interfere with the full faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment or circumvent the rights of the exclusive representative." Id. § 179A.06, subdiv. 1.

In 2013, ] Minnesota extended PELRA to apply to those who provide in-home care to Medicaid recipients. Ch. 128, art. 2, 2013 Minn. Laws at 2173-78. Under the 2013 Act, Minnesota considers homecare providers to be public employees solely for purposes of PELRA. Minn. Stat. § 179A.54, subdiv. 2. The Act specifies, however, that no agreement reached between the State and the exclusive representative may interfere with certain rights of the Medicaid recipients—namely, "to select, hire, direct, supervise, and terminate the employment of their individual providers; to manage an individual service budget regarding the amounts and types of authorized goods or  [*573]  services received; or to receive direct support services from individual providers not referred to them through [**4]  a state registry." Id. § 179A.54, subdiv. 4.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

900 F.3d 570 *; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22459 **; 212 L.R.R.M. 3021

Teresa Bierman; Kathy Borgerding; Linda Brickley; Carmen Gretton; Beverly Ofstie; Scott Price; Tammy Tankersley; Kim Woehl; Karen Yust, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Governor Mark Dayton, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Minnesota; Josh Tilsen, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services; Emily Johnson Piper, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services1; SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, Defendants - Appellees.

Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by Bierman v. Dayton, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26345 (8th Cir. Minn., Sept. 17, 2018)

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Bierman v. Walz, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3379 (U.S., May 13, 2019)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.

Bierman v. Dayton, 227 F. Supp. 3d 1022, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 470 (D. Minn., Jan. 3, 2017)

CORE TERMS

providers, exclusive representative, homecare, employees, negotiate, injury in fact, impingement, mandatory, election

Business & Corporate Compliance, Labor & Employment Law, Collective Bargaining & Labor Relations, Duty to Bargain, Governments, Local Governments, Employees & Officials, Labor & Employment Law, Bargaining Units, State & Territorial Governments, Public Health & Welfare Law, Social Security, Medicaid, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Standing, Elements, Bill of Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Freedom of Association