(1 of 3) Case: 17-35693, 07/09/2018, ID: 10935967, DktEntry: 43-1, Page 1 of 2 July 9, 2018 Via Electronic Filing Molly C. Dwyer Office of the Clerk James R. Browning Courthouse U.S. Court of Appeals 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103-1526 Re: Clark, et al. v. City of Seattle, et al., 9th Cir. Case No. 17-35693 Dear Ms. Dwyer: Appellees City of Seattle et al. hereby respond to Plaintiffs’ letter regarding Janus v. AFSCME (U.S. June 27, 2018). Janus holds that a State’s requirement that public employees pay fees to labor unions violates the First Amendment. But Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim is not about compelled fees. Rather, Plaintiffs assert a First Amendment “forced association” claim challenging the system of exclusive driver representation established by the Ordinance. Janus neither holds nor suggests that such a system violates the First Amendment. On the contrary, the majority opinion distinguishes exclusive representation from fair-share fees and emphasizes that exclusive representation is a key ingredient of a collective bargaining regime. Op. at 11-12, 14-15. Further, Janus assumes labor peace to be a compelling state interest and describes exclusive representation as the proper way to achieve it. Id. at 11-12. And finally, Janus did not overrule, limit, or even address Minnesota State Board v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984), which remains controlling precedent. As discussed in the City’s Answering Brief, ECF 25 at 52-54, Knight upheld Minnesota’s exclusive representation system and held that there was “no ... reason to invoke heightened scrutiny.” 465 U.S. at 291. (2 of 3) Case: 17-35693, 07/09/2018, ID: 10935967, DktEntry: 43-1, Page 2 of 2 July 9, 2018 Page 2 of 2 If anything, Janus supports the City’s position on one dispositive point: Janus suggests that there is no First Amendment issue whatsoever when the government allows, but does not compel, union shop arrangements between private parties. Op. at 35-36 & n.24. As discussed in the City’s Answering Brief, ECF 25 at 55, the Ordinance here allows, but does not compel, driver coordinators and EDRs to enter into such arrangements, and is thus constitutionally sound. Finally, the City notes that because Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims are not ripe, see ECF 25 at 51, the Court need not consider Janus or any of Plaintiffs’ other First Amendment arguments. Sincerely, /s/P. Casey Pitts P. Casey Pitts Counsel for Defendants-Appellees City of Seattle et al. (3 of 3) Case: 17-35693, 07/09/2018, ID: 10935967, DktEntry: 43-2, Page 1 of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s/P. Casey Pitts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