18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 505 Fultz, et al. v. AFSCME , Council 13, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135406 (M.D. Penn. July 16, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of public employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, brought a putative class action after they attempted to resign their memberships in the Union and were still charged union dues. Defendants allowed Plaintiffs to resign, but nevertheless continued to deduct union membership dues from Plaintiffs’ paychecks on the basis that Plaintiffs had entered into a binding contract with the Union as stated in their Membership Cards when they voluntarily joined the Union. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant’s conduct of collecting their dues was in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 , 138 S. Ct. 2448, (2018). Janus held that unions cannot compel non-member public employees to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment. Defendants argued that Janus did not apply, and moved the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants argued that Janus did not affect the rights of public sector employees who voluntarily join a union and holding Plaintiffs to the terms of the parties’ agreement under these facts did not violate the First Amendment. In response, Plaintiffs contended that Janus did apply to their case and that, even if it did not, the Membership Cards by which they joined the Union constituted unenforceable contracts. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contended that they were not provided readily ascertainable procedures by which to cease payments to the Union in violation of their due process rights. The Court determined that Janus did not apply to the present set of facts and declined to apply Janus as Plaintiffs urged. Consequently, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs could not avoid their contractual obligations, for which they received valuable consideration, based upon Janus. The Court agreed with Defendants’ position that Janus did not apply when an employee has voluntarily signed a contract to join a Union, because Janus only considered whether non-union members could be assessed fair share fees for the benefits that they received from union representation on behalf of all public employees in their bargaining unit without their consent. Even assuming the inapplicability of Janus , Plaintiffs argued that dismissal was not warranted because Plaintiffs had alleged that the contracts were unenforceable. Looking to Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Court determined that it contained no factual allegations to support a claim that the contract was unenforceable. As such, the Court dismissed that claim. However, the Court declined to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim alleging a due process violation for their lack of options to cease their forced financial support of the Union. Plaintiffs alleged that they took advantage of the process afforded to them – in this case, informing Defendants that they wished to cease paying Union dues within the alleged window, as was required by their Membership Cards, yet Defendants continued to deduct union dues. The Court reasoned that these facts were sufficient to survive at this early procedural juncture. Accordingly, the Court declined to dismiss the claim and ruled that Plaintiffs were permitted to conduct discovery on the limited issue of procedural due process violations in the continued collection of Union dues. In sum, the Court granted Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Hoekman, et al. v. Education Minnesota, et al., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26927 (D. Minn. Feb. 12, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of public sector employees, filed class actions against their respective labor unions seeking a refund of the fees Plaintiffs paid to their unions in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME , Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). Prior to Janus , labor unions could force public sector employees to contribute to the union’s collective bargaining costs – commonly referred to as “fair-share” fees – even if the employees did not join the union. Id. at *2. However, the Supreme Court held in Janus that these “fair-share” fees violated employees’ First Amendment rights. The non-union Plaintiffs in these cases sought a refund of the fair-share fees they paid prior to Janus , and the unionized Plaintiffs sought a refund of the “compulsory portion” of the union membership dues they paid prior to Janus . Id. at *3. This “compulsory portion” of fees referred to the portion of the unionized Plaintiffs’ dues that they would have been required to pay even if they declined to join the union. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the Court granted Defendants’ motions while denying Plaintiffs’ motions. In addressing the claims of Plaintiffs Hoekman and Hanson, two non- union public school teachers seeking a refund of the fair-share fees they paid before Janus pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants asserted that their good faith reliance on the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act (“PELRA”) and 40 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent constituted an affirmative defense to Plaintiffs’ § 1983. The Court agreed. It found that Defendants fairly relied on these sources, and that “no evidence in the record indicated that . . . Defendants acted with malice, with the knowledge that PELRA was unconstitutional, or otherwise acted in bad faith.” Id. at *13. Plaintiffs Hoekman and Hanson alternatively sought a refund on the basis that their fees were unconstitutionally taken, but the Court rejected this argument as well, noting that several other case law authorities had similarly rejected “attempts to circumvent the good faith defense by characterizing their Janus claims as restitutionary.” Id. at *14. In addition, the Court considered the