Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Bennett v. AFSCME

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Bennett v. AFSCME
Case number: 20-1603
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: April 26, 2019
District court decision:
March 31, 2020
Appeals court decision:
March 12, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Nov. 1, 2021
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to or after Janus v. AFSCME. Further, it is constitutional for unions to act as exclusive representatives.
Appeals court outcome
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari denied.

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.

Bennett v. AFSCME was decided on March 12, 2021, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The plaintiff filed a complaint following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and fee collection, as well as a request that the court enjoin officials from enforcing and certifying the union as an exclusive representative. In Janus, the high court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support union activities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois' March 2020 dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court denied review of the case on November 1, 2021.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Susan Bennett, an employee of the Moline-Coal Valley School District. The defendants were Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, AFSCME Local 672, Moline Coal Valley School District No. 40, Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D), and Andrea R. Waintroob.
  • 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, is it constitutional for unions to act as exclusive representatives?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Sara Darrow presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge appellate panel included Seventh Circuit Judges Ilana Rovner, Diane Sykes, and Joel Flaum.
  • The outcome: The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of the defendants. The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Susan Bennett, represented by counsel from the Liberty Justice Center. The defendants were Council 31 of the American Federation of State, the County and Municipal Employees, AFL CIO, AFSCME Local 672, the Moline Coal Valley School District No. 40, Kwame Raoul, and Andrea R. Waintroob. Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL CIO, and AFSCME Local 672 were represented by counsel from Bredhoff and Kaiser, PLLC. The Moline Coal Valley School District No. 40 was represented by counsel from Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn LLP. Kwame Raoul and Andrea Waintroob were represented by counsel from the Office of the Attorney General. Judy Biggert, Gilbert O’Brien Jr., Lynne Sered, and Lara Shayne were named as defendants during the district court proceedings but were not named in the appeal.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[3][4][5][2][1][7][6]

    • April 26, 2019: The lawsuit was filed on April 26, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, where it corresponded to case number 4:19-cv-04087. The defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, to which the plaintiff responded.
    • March 31, 2020: The court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
    • April 15, 2020: The plaintiff filed for an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The lawsuit corresponded to the case number 0:20-cv-01621.
    • March 12, 2021:The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • May 14, 2021: The plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • November 1, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On March 31, 2020, Judge Sara Darrow issued an order in favor of the defendants, granting their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Darrow wrote the following in the court's opinion:[2]

    “

    The fact that Plaintiff did not sign a waiver of the later-identified First Amendment right to not pay a fair-share fee does not invalidate her agreement to join the Union. The 2017 Card was not the product of coercion and was not involuntary simply because Janus made union membership less appealing.

    [...] On remand, the Seventh Circuit reiterated the viability of exclusive union representation. “[T]he union still enjoys the power and attendant privileges of being the exclusive representative of an employee unit.” Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 942 F.3d 352, 358 (7th Cir. 2019). It is “[t]he principle . . . [that] lies at the heart of our system of industrial relations.” Id. at 354. This leaves Knight, Hill, and exclusive representation undisturbed.[8]

    		”

    Darrow was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On March 12, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—Judges Ilana Rovner, Diane Sykes, and Joel Flaum—affirmed the district court's ruling. Flaum wrote:[1]

    “

    "... we agree with the reasoning of the Third and Ninth Circuit panels and conclude that the First Amendment does not provide Bennett with a right to renege on her bargained‐for commitment to pay union dues.

    [...]

    "... we apply Knight’s directly applicable precedent and hold that the IELRA’s exclusive‐bargaining‐representative arrangement does not violate Bennett’s First Amendment rights. We find further reinforcement for this conclusion in the fact that every circuit court to address this issue after the Janus decision has held that exclusive representation remains constitutional.

    [...]

    Bennett cannot establish the existence of a First Amendment violation on either of the counts in her complaint. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants–appellees and denial of summary judgment for Bennett. [8]

    		”

    Rovner was appointed to the court by President George H.W. Bush (R). Sykes was appointed by President George W. Bush (R). Flaum was appointed by President Ronald Reagan (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.[9]

    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.[9]

    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."[9]

    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

    Supreme Court

    Appeals Court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, "No. 20‐1621," March 12, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, "Order," March 31, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, “Bennett v. Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO et al,” accessed May 2, 2020 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacermonitor" defined multiple times with different content
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 PacerMonitor, “Susan Bennett v. Council 31 of the American Fed, et al,” accessed May 2, 2020 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacerappeal" defined multiple times with different content
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 PacerMonitor, "Complaint,” April 26, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List 595 U.S.," November 1, 2021
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari," May 14, 2021
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 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=Bennett_v._AFSCME&oldid=9203569"