INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs are individuals who provide home-based care to family members

enrolled in Minnesota Medicaid programs. They bring this action to enjoin and declare
unconstitutional the Individual Providers of Direct Support Services Representation
Act, 2013 Minn. Law. Ch. 128, codified at Minn. Stat. 179A.54, 256B.0711 (the
Act), which calls for State certification of an organization to act as homecare providers
exclusive representative for petitioning the State over aspects of its Medicaid programs.
The Act compels association of an expressive purpose, violating Plaintiffs rights under
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as secured against state
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Teresa Bierman, Kathy Borgerding,
Linda Brickley, Carmen Gretton, Beverly
Ofstie, Scott Price, Tammy Tankersley,
Kim Woehl, Karen Yust,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
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,
LUCINDA JESSON, in Her Official
Capacity as Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Human
Services, SEIU HEALTHCARE
MINNESOTA,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 1 of 11
2
infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983, to individually choose
with whom they associate to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 because it arises under the United States Constitution, and 28 U.S.C. 1343
because Plaintiffs seek relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This Court has the authority under
28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 to grant declaratory relief and other relief based thereon.
3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiffs are individuals who reside in Minnesota and provide homecare
services to disabled individuals enrolled in a Minnesota Medicaid program that pays for
homecare services. More specifically:
5. Plaintiff Teresa Bierman provides homecare services to her daughter, who
participates in the Consumer Directed Community Supports program. Her daughter
requires constant care and supervision due to cerebral palsy, and other disorders that
result in profound cognitive and motor disabilities.
6. Plaintiff Linda Brickley provides homecare services to her son, who
participates in the Consumer Directed Community Supports program. Her son requires
constant care and supervision due to his severe autism.
7. Plaintiff Kathy Borgerding provides homecare services to her daughter,
who participates in the Consumer Directed Community Supports program. Her daughter
requires constant care and supervision due to her autism, epilepsy, and other
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 2 of 11
3
developmental disabilities.
8. Plaintiff Carmen Gretton provides homecare services to her son, who
participates in the Consumer Directed Community Supports program. He requires
constant care and supervision due to his autism and other disorders that result in profound
cognitive and motor disabilities.
9. Plaintiff Beverly Ofstie provides homecare services to her son, who
participates in the Consumer Directed Community Supports program. Her son requires
constant care and supervision due to Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome and several other
disorders.
10. Plaintiff Scott Price provides homecare services to his daughter, who
participates in the Consumer Directed Community Supports program. His daughter
requires constant care and supervision due to her Cerebral Palsy and other disorders.
11. Plaintiff Tammy Tankersley provides homecare services to her son, who
participates in the Consumer Directed Community Supports program. Her son requires
constant care and supervision due to his autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
and epilepsy.
12. Plaintiff Kimberly Woehl provides homecare services to her son, who
participates in the Consumer Directed Community Supports program. Her son requires
constant care and supervision due to his autism.
13. Plaintiff Karen Yust provides homecare services to her son, who
participates in the Consumer Support Grant program. Her son requires constant care and
supervision due to his cerebral palsy, seizures, and global developmental delay.
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 3 of 11
4
14. Defendant Mark Dayton is the Governor of the State of Minnesota and its
chief executive officer, and is sued in his official capacity.
15. Defendant Josh Tilsen is the Commissioner of the Minnesota Bureau of
Mediation Services (BMS), and is sued in his official capacity.
16. Defendant Lucinda Jesson is the Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services (DHS), and is sued in her official capacity.
17. Defendant SEIU Healthcare Minnesota (SEIU) is a labor union that
transacts business and has one of its two main offices in this judicial district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I. Homecare Programs
18. Minnesota operates several Medicaid programs that subsidize the cost of
home-based services for persons with disabilities in order to prevent their unnecessary
institutionalization. As relevant here, these programs include, but are not limited to the:
(1) Consumer Directed Community Supports Program; (2) Personal Care Assistance
Choice program; (3) Consumer Support Grant Program; and (4) Community First
Services and Supports program. See Minn. Stat. 256B.0711, subd. 1(b).
19. Participants in these Medicaid programs may employ an Individual
Provider to assist them with household tasks, personal care, and certain health care
procedures. An Individual Provider is defined by statute as an individual selected by
and working under the direction of a participant in a covered program, or a participants
representative, to provide direct support services to the participant, but does not include
an employee of a provider agency, subject to the agencys direction and control
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 4 of 11
5
commensurate with agency employee status. Minn. Stat. 256B.0711, subd. 1(d); see
also id. at 179A.54, subd. 1(b).
20. Individual Providers are employed by program participants or their
guardians. Conversely, program participants or their guardians act as the employers of
Individual Providers, sometimes with the assistance of private fiscal intermediary
organizations. Among other things, program participants or their guardians recruit, select,
hire, direct, supervise, train, and fire their Individual Providers.
21. Individual Providers are not employed by the State of Minnesota. The State
merely subsidizes a program participants costs of hiring Individual Providers through its
Medicaid programs.
22. There are approximately 26,000 Individual Providers employed by
participants in the relevant Medicaid programs at this time, including the Plaintiffs. Like
the Plaintiffs, many Individual Providers are family members of program participants.
II. The State Seeks to Compel Individual Providers to Accept a State-Appointed
Exclusive Representative.
23. On May 24, 2013, Governor Dayton signed the Act into law. The Act
deems Individual Providers to be state employees solely for purposes of unionization.
24. More specifically, the Act provides that [f]or the purposes of the Public
Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA), under chapter 179A, individual providers
shall be considered, by virtue of this section, executive branch state employees employed
by the commissioner of management and budget or the commissioners representative.
Minn. Stat. 179A.54, subd. 2. However, the section does not require the treatment of
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 5 of 11
6
individual providers as public employees for any other purpose. Id.
25. The Act calls for the State to certify an exclusive representative of
Individual Providers based on the results of a mail ballot election conducted by BMS. See
Minn. Stat. 179A.54, subd. 10.
26. Exclusive representation is a fiduciary relationship. Thus, State certification
of an exclusive representative will thrust Plaintiffs and all other Individual Providers into
a mandatory fiduciary relationship with their State-appointed representative.
27. Under the Act, a State-certified exclusive representative is vested with the
statutory right to meet and negotiate with the State as the representative of all
Individual Providers over certain issues of public policy. Minn. Stat. 179A.54, subd. 3.
This includes compensation rates, payments terms and practices, and any benefit terms .
. . required orientation programs and other appropriate terms and conditions of
employment governing the workforce of individual providers. Id. at 256B.0711, subd.
4(c). A State-certified exclusive representative is also vested with the authority to enter
into contracts with the State on behalf of all Individual Providers regarding these policy
matters. See id. at 179A.54, subd. 5.
28. The Act thereby contemplates forcing Plaintiffs and all other Individual
Providers to accept a mandatory, exclusive representative for petitioning and contracting
with the State over certain Medicaid policies that may affect them.
29. State certification of an exclusive representative will affiliate Plaintiffs and
all other Individual Providers with the petitioning, speech, and policy positions of their
State-appointed exclusive representative.
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 6 of 11
7
30. The Act also authorizes the State to force Individual Providers to
financially support a certified exclusive representative by making applicable to Individual
Providers Minnesota Statute 179A.06, subd. 3, which provides that [a]n exclusive
representative may require employees who are not members of the exclusive
representative to contribute a fair share fee for services rendered by the exclusive
representative. See also id. at 256B.0711, subd. (h) (authorizing the Commissioner of
DHS to require the extraction of compulsory fees for an exclusive representative from
payments made to Individual Providers).
31. On July 8, 2014, SEIU Healthcare Minnesota (SEIU) submitted a petition
to BMS seeking a mail ballot election under the Act. BMS will mail ballots to Individual
Providers on August 1, 2014. The mail ballots must be returned by August 25, 2014.
32. BMS will tabulate the votes in returned ballots on August 26, 2014. On the
same date, BMS will certify the SEIU as the exclusive representative of all Individual
Providers, to include the Plaintiffs, if a majority of the votes cast are for the SEIU.
33. Plaintiffs strongly oppose being forced to accept the SEIU as their
exclusive representative for petitioning and contracting with the State. They do not want
to be forced into a fiduciary relationship with this advocacy group, do not want to
affiliate with its expressive activities, and do not want to be forced to financially support
the SEIU. Plaintiffs also do not want their individual right to choose with whom they
associate to petition government subjected to a majority vote. Plaintiffs want to retain
their individual right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, to choose with whom they associate to lobby the State.
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 7 of 11
8
34. There is an actual and imminent risk that Plaintiffs and other Individual
Providers will have their associational rights put to a majority vote on August 1, 2014,
and will be forced to associate with the SEIU for purposes of petitioning and contracting
with the State on August 26, 2014.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
35. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the paragraphs set forth
above in each Count of their Complaint.
36. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees each
citizen an individual right to choose whether, how, and with whom he or she associates to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances and engage in speech. A state
infringes on these First Amendment rights when it compels citizens to associate with or
financially support an organization for these expressive purposes.
COUNT I
(State certification of an exclusive representation for Individual Providers will
violate 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the United States Constitution)
37. By and through the Act, Defendants threaten to compel Plaintiffs and other
Individual Providers to associate with the SEIU as their exclusive representative for
petitioning and contracting with the State. By so doing, Defendants will violate Plaintiffs
First Amendment rights, as secured against state infringement by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, to not associate with
the SEIU for expressive purposes and to not associate with the SEIUs expressive
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 8 of 11
9
activities. No compelling or otherwise sufficient state interest justifies this infringement
on First Amendment rights.
38. Plaintiffs will suffer the irreparable harm and injury inherent in a violation
of First Amendment rights, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, when forced to
associate with the SEIU, and will thereafter continue to suffer irreparable harm and injury
until the Act is enjoined by this Court.
39. The Act is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs.
COUNT II
(Subjecting Plaintiffs First Amendment rights to a majority vote violates
42 U.S.C. 1983 and the United States Constitution)
40. The First Amendment protects individual liberties, to include freedom of
association, from majority rule. Defendants are violating Plaintiffs First Amendment
rights, as secured against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, by putting to a majority vote the individual
right of each Plaintiff and Individual Provider to choose which organization, if any, he or
she associates with for petitioning the State over its Medicaid policies.
41. Plaintiffs are suffering the irreparable harm and injury inherent in a
violation of First Amendment rights, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, as a
result of the Defendants subjecting their First Amendment rights to a majority vote.
42. The election being conducted under the Act, and all elections authorized
under the Act, are unconstitutional both on their face and as applied to Plaintiffs.
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 9 of 11
10
COUNT III
(Compulsory financial support for an exclusive representative will violate
42 U.S.C. 1983 and the United States Constitution)
43. Defendants will violate the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and other
Individual Providers, as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983, by compelling Plaintiffs and other Individual
Providers to financially support the SEIU or any other exclusive representative.
44. Plaintiffs will suffer the irreparable harm and injury inherent in a violation
of First Amendment rights, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, when forced to
financially support the SEIU or any other exclusive representative.
45. The Act, to the extent it authorizes or permits the Defendants to compel
Individual Providers to financially support an exclusive representative, is unconstitutional
both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Act is unconstitutional under the First
Amendment, as secured against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment and 42
U.S.C. 1983, and null and void;
B. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that enjoin enforcement of the
Act, either in whole or in part;
C. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to the
Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 10 of 11
11
D. Grant such other and additional relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
Date: July 28, 2014 WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A.
By s/ Craig S. Krummen
Craig S. Krummen, #0259081
Suite 3500 Capella Tower
225 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel (612) 604-6400
[email protected]
and
William L. Messenger (Va. Bar. 47179)
(Pro Hac Vice Motion to be filed)
Aaron B. Solem (#0392920)
National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, VA 22160
Tel (703) 321-8510
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9332427v1
CASE 0:14-cv-03021-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/28/14 Page 11 of 11