ST. LOUIS – A group of parents who provide in-home care for their disabled children have lost an appeal in regards to union representation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit decision was in response to a case from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota at Minneapolis.
After the state of Minnesota extended the state’s Public Employment Labor Relations Act to those individuals who offer in-home care to disabled patients who receive Medicaid, a group of parents who look after their children sued the state.
“A group of parents who provide home care services to their disabled children sued several state officials and a union, alleging that the 2013 Act violates the home care providers’ freedom of association under the First and 14th Amendments,” the Aug. 14 court decision states. “They complain that the Act unconstitutionally compels them to associate with the exclusive negotiating representative. The district court, relying on Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight ... 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.”
The dispute goes back to an incident in June 2014 when SEIU Healthcare Minnesota gathered more than 9,000 signatures of state home care providers stating they wanted SEIU to be their exclusive representatives. Those who signed also filed an official election petition.
The court filing notes that the plaintiffs in the case filed their lawsuit in response to these actions, attempting to prevent Minnesota from holding the election and making SEIU their exclusive representative.
“The providers alleged that if Minnesota conducted the election and recognized SEIU as the exclusive representative, the state would violate their right not to associate under the First Amendment. The district court refused to enjoin the election, and the vote selected SEIU as the exclusive representative. The court then granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendants on the providers’ First Amendment claim.
“The state defendants contend that there is no case or controversy before us, because the providers lack standing to sue. They argue that the home care providers have not alleged a concrete injury in fact that satisfies the minimum requirements of Article III.”