Case 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 9

1 Georlen K. Spangler, Esq. (NV Bar No. 3818)

Email: spanglerlaw@outlook.com
2 Stephen A. Davis, Esq. (NV Bar No. 14185)
Email: sdavislaw@outlook.com
3 THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORLEN K. SPANGLER
2620 Regatta Drive, Suite 102
4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128
Telephone: (702) 381-5830
5
Ángel J. Valencia (D.C. Bar No. 1552471) (Pro Hac Vice Application forthcoming)
6 Email: ajv@nrtw.org
Milton L. Chappell (D.C. Bar No. 936153) (Pro Hac Vice Application forthcoming)
7 Email: mlc@nrtw.org
c/o NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL
8 DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
9 Springfield, Virginia 22160
Telephone: (703) 321-8510
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff Melodie DePierro
11

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14 MELODIE DEPIERRO, an individual, Case No.:

15 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
16 v. Constitutional Violation Action
(42 U.S.C. § 1983), Declaratory Judgment,
17 LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE Injunctive Relief, Compensatory and
ASSOCIATION METRO, INC., a Nevada non- Nominal Damages.
18 profit corporation; and LAS VEGAS
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a
19 political subdivision of the State of Nevada,
20 Defendants.
21

22 INTRODUCTION

23 1. This civil rights and declaratory judgment action arises from the Defendants’ blatant

24 violation of Plaintiff Melodie DePierro’s (“DePierro”) First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by

25 compelling her to pay union dues without her consent. On June 27, 2018, the United States Supreme

26 Court held that it is unconstitutional for public-sector unions and employers to collect/deduct union dues

27 or fees from public employees without their affirmative, voluntary consent and knowing waiver of their

28 First Amendment rights. Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018).

1
 Case 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 9

1 2. DePierro serves as a Police Officer for Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
2 Department (“LVMPD”). She is employed in a bargaining unit exclusively represented by Defendant Las
3 Vegas Police Protective Association (“PPA”). Defendants have deducted and collected union dues from
4 DePierro’s wages despite the fact that DePierro revoked her consent to have any money deducted from
5 her wages on January 9, 2020. Thus, Defendants failed to obtain DePierro’s voluntary, intelligent, and
6 knowing consent as required by Janus.
7 3. Specifically, almost seventeen months after Janus was decided, DePierro notified both
8 LVMPD and PPA of her resignation of union membership and demanded that all union deductions from
9 her wages cease. Despite the Supreme Court’s holding in Janus, however, LVMPD and PPA have
10 continued to deduct and collect dues from her wages, citing a clause in the collective bargaining agreement
11 that DePierro could only withdraw her consent during a narrow 20-day escape period. Defendants’
12 unjustified refusal and reliance upon an unconstitutional provision forces DePierro to continue to associate
13 with a union and pay its dues and/or fees, in explicit violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in
14 Janus. That forcible association and dues deduction/collection is a violation of DePierro’s First and
15 Fourteenth Amendment rights, and severely restricts the exercise of her First Amendment right under
16 Janus not to subsidize unions and their speech.
17 4. DePierro brings this civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking: (a) judgment
18 declaring the deductions of union dues or fees without her affirmative consent and knowing waiver of
19 First Amendment rights as unconstitutional and unenforceable; (b) judgment declaring the restrictive
20 revocation policy found in the collective bargaining agreement, which limits employees’ dues deductions
21 revocation rights to a yearly 20-day escape period, violates the First Amendment as applied to DePierro
22 and is null and void; (c) injunctive relief that prohibits the maintenance and enforcement of the
23 unconstitutional policies, actions and provisions, along with compensatory damages, nominal damages,
24 and attorneys’ fees; and (d) damages in the form of refund or restitution of all unlawfully seized money
25 from DePierro without her consent.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

2
 Case 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 9

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 5. This is an action that arises under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
3 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured to
4 DePierro by the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
5 6. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
6 7. This action is an actual controversy in which Plaintiff DePierro seeks a declaration of her
7 rights under the Constitution of the United States. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, this Court may
8 declare DePierro’s rights and grant further necessary and proper relief based thereon, including injunctive
9 relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
10 8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the claims arise in this
11 judicial district and Defendants operate and do business in this judicial district.
12 PARTIES
13 9. Plaintiff DePierro was and is an individual who resides and works in Clark County,
14 Nevada. DePierro is a decorated veteran police officer with LVMPD, who has served the people of Las
15 Vegas and Clark County for over 14 years.
16 10. Defendant Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Inc. (“PPA”), was and is a
17 Nevada non-profit corporation, whose office is located at 9330 W. Lake Mead Boulevard, Suite 200 Las
18 Vegas, Nevada 89134. It is a local public sector labor union within the meaning of Nev. Rev. Stat.
19 § 288.040. PPA is the exclusive representative for collective bargaining purposes of thousands of
20 individuals employed by LVMPD. PPA entered into a collective bargaining agreement with LVMPD,
21 which terms are then enforced on bargaining unit members.
22 11. Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) was and is a political
23 subdivision of the State of Nevada. Its address is 400 S. Martin L. King Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada
24 89106. LVMPD is responsible for deducting dues from DePierro and remitting them to PPA, pursuant to
25 the collective bargaining agreement it entered with PPA.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///

3
 Case 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 4 of 9

1 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
2 12. Since 2006, DePierro has, and continues to honorably serve as a Police Officer for
3 LVMPD. She is a public sector local government employee within the meaning of Nev. Rev. Stat.
4 § 288.050.
5 13. At all times since joining LVMPD, DePierro has been subject to the exclusive
6 representation of PPA and subject to the collective bargaining agreement between LVMPD and PPA.
7 14. On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court in Janus held forced fee requirements
8 unconstitutional and that public sector employees had a First Amendment right not to have any union dues
9 or fees deducted from their wages without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of their First
10 Amendment rights. 138 S.Ct. at 2486. Janus overturned Abood. 138 S. Ct. at 2486.
11 15. Subsequently, DePierro notified PPA and LVMPD on January 9, 2020, in writing, of her
12 resignation as a member of PPA and requested that any further deductions of union dues from her wages
13 be immediately stopped. Both PPA and LVMPD denied her requests. DePierro renewed her demands on
14 February 5, 2020, but was again denied by both defendants.
15 16. Specifically, Defendants justified their denial by citing to a clause in the collective
16 bargaining agreement between PPA and LVMPD requiring that any requests to have deductions ceased
17 be done during an impermissibly narrow escape period between October 1 and October 20 each year.
18 17. In its relevant part, Article 4.1 of the current collective bargaining agreement between PPA
19 and LVMPD contains a 20-day restrictive dues revocation policy that reads:
20 “The Department agrees to deduct from the paycheck of each employee
within the bargaining unit who has signed an authorized payroll deduction
21 card such amount as has been designated by the Association as Association
dues and is so certified by the Treasurer of the Association...Dues deduction
22 authorization (sic) shall be irrevocable for a period of one (1) year and
automatically renewed each year thereafter commencing October 1, except
23 that authorization may be withdrawn by an employee during a period of 20
days each year ending October 20.”
24

25 18. DePierro never signed any dues deduction authorization form agreeing to the restrictive
26 escape period of 20 days contained in Article 4.1 of the collective bargaining agreement.
27 19. The restrictive revocation policy is and will continue to be enforced by LVMPD that, in
28 coordination with PPA and at its behest, deducts union dues from DePierro’s wages and remits those

4
 Case 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 5 of 9

1 monies to PPA pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. PPA and LVMPD have failed
2 and refused to terminate the restrictive revocation policy after DePierro’s notifications of union
3 membership resignation and requests to have deductions ceased.
4 CAUSES OF ACTION
5 20. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
6 forth herein.
7 21. Defendants are acting under color of state law, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.505, by maintaining
8 and enforcing the restrictive revocation policy and by deducting/collecting union dues from DePierro
9 without her affirmative consent.
10 22. DePierro is suing Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act,
11 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
12 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13 DECLARATORY RELIEF
14 23. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
15 forth herein.
16 24. An actual controversy has arisen and exists between DePierro and Defendants concerning
17 their respective rights and duties under the collective bargaining agreement. DePierro contends the
18 restrictive revocation policy, contained in the collective bargaining agreement and as applied to DePierro,
19 prohibits DePierro from exercising her First Amendment right under Janus not to subsidize a labor union
20 and its speech. Thus, the restrictive revocation policy is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
21 25. The Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment, “[n]either an agency fee nor any
22 other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be
23 made to collect such payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.” Janus, 138 S.Ct. at
24 2486. It further held that an individual’s consent to pay union dues requires a waiver of First Amendment
25 rights. Id. A waiver of First Amendment rights must be knowingly, clearly, and voluntarily made to be
26 effective. Id.
27 26. The restrictive revocation policy requires that a person withdraw their consent during a
28 narrow 20-day escape period; otherwise, the person must wait until the next period to withdraw their

5
 Case 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 6 of 9

1 consent. Such a restriction is unconstitutional because it deprives DePierro of her First Amendment rights
2 to free speech and association, as secured against infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
3 United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4 27. In other words, should a LVMPD union member wish to have union deductions ceased but
5 fails to do so within the 20-day escape period, then LVMPD and PPA can compel that individual to
6 subsidize a union and its speech for up to another 11 months, or as here, force DePierro to remain a dues-
7 paying union member for another 9 months. That is impermissible under Janus.
8 28. The restrictive revocation policy caused and continues to cause the deduction and
9 collection of union dues from DePierro, who does not consent to paying union dues or having union dues
10 deducted from her wages.
11 29. Defendants refuse to stop enforcing the restrictive revocation policy, as required by Janus
12 and the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments, thus forcing DePierro to associate and
13 compel speech until the next escape period to withdraw consent.
14 30. DePierro desires a judicial determination of: (i) the constitutionality of the restrictive
15 revocation policy; (ii) the respective rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining
16 agreement, specifically the restrictive revocation policy; (iii) the constitutionality of the deductions of
17 union dues and/or fees after DePierro withdrew consent; and (iv) that DePierro’s resignation and
18 revocation of any previously authorized dues deduction authorization on January 9, 2020 were valid.
19 31. These declarations are necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may
20 ascertain their rights and duties under the collective bargaining agreement.
21 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22 INJUNCTION
23 32. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
24 forth herein.
25 33. Defendants failed to obtain from DePierro the affirmative consent required for union
26 deductions to take place.
27 34. Defendants failed to obtain a valid waiver of her First Amendment rights from DePierro
28 under Janus prior to the deduction of the dues and/or fees collected.

6
 Case 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 7 of 9

1 35. Defendants’ continued deduction of union dues from the wages of DePierro, from January
2 9, 2020 onward, without an affirmative authorization and knowing waiver of First Amendment rights
3 violates her First Amendment rights to free speech and association, as secured against state infringement
4 by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5 36. Furthermore, Defendants’ continued deduction and collection of union dues in spite of
6 DePierro’s repeated requests to end deductions violate DePierro’s First Amendment rights to free speech
7 and association, as secured against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
8 Constitution and 42 U.SC. § 1983.
9 37. Plaintiff DePierro is suffering the irreparable harm and injury inherent in a violation of
10 First Amendment rights, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, as a result of being subjected to
11 Defendants’ continued deductions of union dues.
12 38. Accordingly, the restrictive revocation policy is unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable.
13 39. Therefore, DePierro is entitled to an injunction enjoining: (i) Defendants, along with their
14 officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any other person or entity in active concert or
15 participation with them, from maintaining and enforcing the restrictive revocation policy and from
16 collecting and deducting union dues from DePierro; (ii) LVMPD from carrying out dues deductions —
17 pursuant to the restrictive revocation policy— from DePierro’s wages; and (iii) order Defendants to
18 reimburse DePierro the amount of money equal to the unlawfully and improperly withheld union dues
19 deducted and collected subsequent to her demand to have deductions ceased, plus applicable interest.
20 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21 VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
22 40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
23 forth herein.
24 41. As a result of Defendants’ ongoing violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violating DePierro’s
25 First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, DePierro has and continues to sustain damages in the form of
26 wrongfully withheld union dues and/or fees, with the exact amount to be proven at trial.
27 ///
28 ///

7
 Case 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 8 of 9

1 42. As a result of Defendants’ ongoing violations of DePierro’s First and Fourteenth

2 Amendment rights, it has been necessary for DePierro to retain an attorney to prosecute this action, and
3 Defendants should be required to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5 Wherefore, Plaintiff DePierro requests that this Court:
6 A. Declaratory Judgment: (i) Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants are violating
7 DePierro’s First Amendment rights as secured against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment
8 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by collecting and deducting union dues without her consent, (ii) Enter a declaratory
9 judgment that the restrictive revocation policy is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as secured
10 against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and unenforceable against
11 DePierro, and (iii) Enter a declaratory judgment that DePierro’s revocation request of January 9, 2020 was
12 valid, and thus DePierro was not required to pay union dues or fees as of that date and that any collection
13 of union dues or fees from that date was unlawful.
14 B. Injunctive Relief: (i) Permanently enjoin Defendants, along with their officers, agents,
15 servants, employees, attorneys, and any other person or entity in active concert or participation with them,
16 from maintaining and enforcing the restrictive revocation policy and from collecting and deducting union
17 dues from DePierro; (ii) Permanently enjoin LVMPD from carrying out dues deductions —pursuant to
18 the restrictive revocation policy— from DePierro’s wages; and (iii) order Defendants to reimburse
19 DePierro the amount of money equal to the unlawfully and improperly withheld union dues deducted and
20 collected subsequent to her demand to have deductions ceased, plus applicable interest; and (iv) require
21 PPA and the District to provide Plaintiff DePierro with written notice that the restrictive revocation policy
22 is unconstitutional and unenforceable and that her resignation and request to cease dues deductions will
23 be honored retroactive to the date of her first request.
24 C. Damages: (i) Enter a judgment awarding DePierro compensatory damages, refunds or
25 restitution in the amount of union dues illegally deducted or required to be paid, directly or indirectly, to
26 PPA from her wages without her affirmative and knowing consent and waiver of her First Amendment
27 rights, plus applicable interest; and (ii) Enter a judgment awarding nominal damages to DePierro for the
28 violation of her constitutional rights.

8
 Case 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 08/10/20 Page 9 of 9

1 D. Costs and Attorneys’ Fees: Award Plaintiff DePierro her costs and reasonable attorneys’
2 fees pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
3 E. Other Relief: Grant other and additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
4 DATED this 8th day of August, 2020.
5 THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORLEN K. SPANGLER
6
/s/ Georlen K. Spangler, Esq.
7 Georlen K. Spangler, Esq. (NV Bar No. 3818)
Stephen A. Davis, Esq. (NV Bar No. 14185)
8 Ángel J. Valencia, Esq. - (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)
Milton L. Chappell, Esq. - (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff Melodie DePierro
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28