Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association
Case number: 2:19-cv-03709
Status: Closed.
Important dates
Filed: Aug. 27, 2019
Dismissed by stipulation:
July 20, 2020

This case is one of over a hundred public-sector union lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. These pages were updated through February 2023 and may not reflect subsequent case developments. For more information about Ballotpedia's coverage of public-sector union policy in the United States, click here. Contact our team to suggest an update.

Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association was dismissed by stipulation on July 20, 2020, after the parties reached a settlement agreement. The plaintiffs had filed a complaint following Janus v. AFSCME that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and dues collection. On April 20, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued an order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.[1][2][3][4]

The settlement "[permitted] state public service workers to opt out of having union 'fair share fees' deducted from their pay at any time during the union's three-year collective bargaining agreement ... and the parties agreed that some of the employees are entitled to refunds."[5]


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Jared Allen, Christina Cole, Jeremy Dunaway, and Eric Hendrickson. The defendants were the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association AFSCME Local 11, Governor Mike DeWine (R), and Director of Ohio Department of Administrative Services Matthew Damschroder.
  • The issue: Can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding agency fees paid prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which held that such fees are unconstitutional? Further, are union membership agreements made prior to Janus v. AFSCME binding to union members seeing to withdraw from the union?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Sarah Morrison was assigned the district court case. Judge Morrison was appointed by President Donald Trump (R).
  • The outcome: The parties reached a settlement agreement and the case was dismissed by stipulation on July 20, 2020.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Jared Allen, Christina Cole, Jeremy Dunaway, and Eric Hendrickson. Jennifer Tom was a plaintiff until April 14, 2020. The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation and Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor. The defendants were the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association AFSCME Local 11, Governor Mike DeWine (R), and Director of Ohio Department of Administrative Services Matthew Damschroder. Governor DeWine and Director Damschroder were represented by attorneys from the Office of the Attorney General. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association AFSCME Local 11 was represented by counsel from the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association.[1][4] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4]

    • August 27, 2019: The plaintiffs in Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association first filed their lawsuit on August 27, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs’ complaint stated that unions were violating their First Amendment rights by denying their requests to withdraw from membership agreements made prior to Janus v. AFSCME. They requested declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on this point, nominal and compensatory damages, and costs and attorney’s fees.
    • December 16, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and stated plaintiffs’ complaint was moot. The plaintiffs answered with a reply.
    • December 27, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The defendants answered with a reply.
    • March 20, 2020: The court issued an opinion and order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
    • April 22, 2020: The plaintiffs appealed the district court order denying their request for a preliminary injunction with the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
    • May 11, 2020: The defendants filed a cross-appeal.
    • July 20, 2020: The case was dismissed by stipulation after the parties reached a settlement agreement.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    On March 20, 2020, Judge Sarah Morrison denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the defendants’ motion for dismissal. Judge Morrison wrote the following in the court's opinion:[3]

    “ Regardless of its contractual obligations to OCSEA, the State cannot lawfully continue to enforce a law it knows to be illegal. [...] Because Plaintiffs do not have a strong likelihood of success on the merits and because there is no risk of irreparable harm, Plaintiffs’ motion cannot succeed. It is not necessary to consider the remaining factors in the preliminary injunction analysis. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.[6] ”

    Morrison was appointed by President Donald Trump (R).

    Legal context

    Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

    See also: Janus v. AFSCME

    On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), ruling that public-sector unions cannot compel non-member employees to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union activities.[7]

    This decision overturned precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977. In Abood, the high court held that it was not a violation of employees' free-speech and associational rights to require them to pay fees to support union activities from which they benefited (e.g., collective bargaining, contract administration, etc.). These fees were commonly referred to as agency fees or fair-share fees.[7]

    Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion for the court majority in Janus, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Alito wrote, "Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled."[7]

    Related litigation

    To view a complete list of the public-sector labor lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked between 2019 and 2023, click here.

    Number of federal lawsuits by circuit

    Between 2019 and 2023, Ballotpedia tracked 191 federal lawsuits related to public-sector labor laws. The chart below depicts the number of suits per federal judicial circuit (i.e., the jurisdictions in which the suits originated).

    Public-sector labor lawsuits on Ballotpedia

    See also: Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023

    Click show to view a list of cases with links to our in-depth coverage.

    v • e
    Public-sector labor lawsuits
    Federal lawsuits

    Adams v. Teamsters Union Local 429 • Akers v. Maryland State Education Association • Aliser v. SEIU California • Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association • Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional • Anderson v. SEIU Local 503 • Babb v. California Teachers Association • Baisley v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers • Belgau v. Inslee • Bennett v. AFSCME • Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521 • Bierman v. Dayton • Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar • Boyle v. SEIU California • Brice v. California Faculty Association • California v. Azar • Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association • Carey v. Inslee • Casanova v. IAM Local 701 • Chandavong et al. v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association et al. • Cook v. Brown • Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association • Crowe v. Oregon State Bar • Cruz v. Union Independiente Autentica de Empleados de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados • Danielson v. Inslee • Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association • Doughty v. State Employees Association of New Hampshire, SEIU, Local 1984 • Durst v. OEA • Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles • File v. Hickey • Fischer v. Murphy • Fisk v. Inslee • Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Fleck v. Wetch • Grega v. Council of New Jersey State College Locals • Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association • Gruber v. Oregon State Bar • Guppy v. City of Los Angeles • Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5 • Hamidi v. SEIU • Hannay v. Kent State • Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association • Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 • Hernandez v. AFSCME California • Hoekman v. Education Minnesota • Hough v. SEIU Local 521 • Imhoff v. California Teachers Association • Jackson v. Napolitano • James v. SEIU Local 688 • Janus v. AFSCME • Jarchow v. Wisconsin • Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State • Wenzig v. SEIU Local 668 • Kopie v. International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees • Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association • Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al. • LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council • Lee v. Ohio Education Association • Leitch v. AFSCME • Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Loescher v. Teamsters Local 320 • Lutter v. JNESO • Mandel v. SEIU Local 73 • Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299 • Martin v. California Teachers Association • Masuo v. AFSCME AFL-CIO • Matthews v. United Teachers of Los Angeles • Mattos v. AFSCME Council 3 • Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District • McCain v. Ventura County Federation of College Teachers, AFT Local 1828 • McCollum v. NEA-Alaska • McCutcheon v. CWA Local 7076 • McDonald v. Firth • Mendez v. CTA • Miller v. Inslee • Misja v. PSEA • Molina v. SEIU Local 668 • Mooney v. Illinois Education Association • Nearman v. SEIU Local 503 • Neely v. AFSCME Council 13 • Nguyen v. Admin. and Residual Employees Union • Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union • O'Callaghan v. Drake • Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group • Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union • Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11 • Oliver v. SEIU Local 668 • Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers • Penning v. SEIU Local 1021 • Polk v. Yee • Popp v. ALPAI • Piekarski v. AFSCME Council 5 • Quirarte v. UDW AFSCME Local 3930 • Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine • Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141 • Routh v. Inslee • Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13 • Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices • Schumaker v. Inslee • Seager v. UTLA • Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress • Smith v. AFSCME Council No. 8 • Smith v. New Jersey Education Association • Smith v. Bieker • Solomon v. AFSCME District Council 37 • Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503 • Sweeney v. Raoul • Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians • Taylor v. Heath • Thompson v. AFSCME Council 89, Local 4013 • Thompson v. Marietta Education Association • Thulen v. AFSCME • Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Org. • Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors • Weyandt v. PSCOA • Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 • Wilford v. National Education Association • Williams v. PSEA • Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees • Yates v. Hillsboro Unified School District • Yohn v. California Teachers Association

    See also

    External links

    Case documents

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, “Allen et al v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association AFSCME, Local 11 et al,” accessed April 24, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "ClassAction.org", “Allen et al v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association AFSCME, Local 11 et al: Class Action Complaint,” August 27, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 PacerMonitor, “Allen et al v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association AFSCME, Local 11 et al: Opinion and Order,” March 20, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, “Jared Allen, et al v. Ohio Civil Serv Empl Assn, et al,” accessed April 24, 2020
    5. ↑ Britannica Academic, "State employees in Ohio now can opt out of union dues at any time: Some groups are working to chip away at unions, but do COVID-19-related work safety issues weaken those arguments?" August 31, 2020
    6. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al., June 27, 2018
    v • e
    Public-sector union policy in the United States
    Public-sector union policy in the United StatesBPstarlogo.png
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Allen_v._Ohio_Civil_Service_Employees_Association&oldid=9203530"