Neil Gorsuch Won't Need an Introduction From This Advocate in Union-Fee Case
David Frederick, name partner in Washington's Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, will argue for the first time in front of his former law firm colleague, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
February 01, 2018 at 02:45 PM
5 minute read
Justice Neil Gorsuch, left, and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM
When veteran advocate David Frederick steps to the lectern in the second major labor case of the U.S. Supreme Court term, the legal issue will be familiar and so will one particular justice.
Frederick, name partner in Washington's Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, will argue for the first time in front of his former law firm colleague, Justice Neil Gorsuch. The high court's freshman justice was in private practice at the firm from 1995 to 2005.
In Janus v. AFSCME, Frederick, the union's counsel, gets a second chance to persuade the justices that requiring nonunion members to pay “fair share” fees to public employee unions representing them in collective bargaining does not violate the First Amendment. The argument is set for Feb. 26.
The justices faced the same legal question in 2016 but deadlocked 4-4 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In that case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, Frederick also represented the union. His opponent was Jones Day appellate partner Michael Carvin.
Carvin is also making a return trip on this issue but as amicus counsel to a group of California public school teachers who support the nonunion challenger. And the Jones Day connection doesn't end there. Carvin's former law partner, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, may argue in Janus, also supporting the nonunion challenger's position.
Although not quite akin to six degrees of Kevin Bacon, the lawyerly connections do reflect the small world of Supreme Court advocacy.
David FrederickIn Janus, Frederick is expected to share argument time with Illinois Solicitor General David Franklin, who represents Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Michael Hoffman, acting director of the Illinois Department of Central Management. Frederick and Franklin have asked the justices to give each 15 minutes.
Mark Janus is represented by William Messenger of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Francisco has asked the high court to give the Solicitor's Office 10 minutes of Messenger's 30-minute argument time.
Messenger has argued two high court cases, including Harris v. Quinn in 2014. In Harris, Justice Samuel Alito Jr., writing for a 5-4 majority, detailed his objections to the 40-year-old high court precedent at the center of the fair share fee battle: Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the 1977 case that upheld the constitutionality of fair-share fees.
The U.S. Department of Justice, under administrations of both political parties, had defended Abood in the last 40 years—until last December. That's when the Justice Department, under U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, took the opposite position in Janus.
During arguments in the 2016 challenge, the union appeared headed for defeat at the hands of the court's five conservative justices. This year, Gorsuch may hold the key to the outcome. He did not face a similar issue when he sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The high court has not acted yet on both sides' requests for divided argument, but it seems likely to approve both based on past practice.
If Francisco does argue in Janus, it will be his third argument since becoming solicitor general. He argued for the government in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, involving a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a challenge to Ohio's process for updating its voter registration rolls.
There are nearly 11 million union-represented employees in 22 states that don't have laws prohibiting agency fees. Roughly half of those employees—7.8 million—are in the public sector, according to the U.S. Labor Department's bureau of labor statistics.
On Oct. 2, the justices heard the other major labor challenge of the term: a trio of cases in which employers seek to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses prohibiting class and collective actions in employment contracts.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court Rebuffs GOP Request to Reject 'Thousands' of Pennsylvania Provisional Ballots
'Unfair Competition'?: Akerman Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against Maryland Nonprofit
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250