Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Fischer v. Murphy

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Susan Fischer, et al v. Governor of New Jersey, et al
Case number: 20-1751
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Nov. 2, 2018
District court decision:
Nov. 27, 2019
Appeals court decision:
Jan. 15, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Nov. 1, 2021
District court outcome
1) Public-sector unions cannot be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period, regardless of membership status. 2) Public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME.
Appeals court outcome
Affirmed the decision of the district court.
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.

Fischer v. Murphy was decided on January 15, 2021, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the constitutionality of agency fees and union dues deduction agreements, made prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued dues deductions throughout a given time regardless of membership status. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's November 2019 ruling in favor of the defendants. 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 plaintiffs were Susan Fischer and Jeanette Speck. The defendants were New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D), the New Jersey Education Association, and the Township of Ocean Education Association.
  • The issue: 1) In light of Janus v. AFSCME, can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period, regardless of membership status? 2) 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?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Renee Bumb (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey), Judges Patty Shwartz, Peter Phipps, and D. Michael Fisher (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)
  • 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 plaintiffs were Susan Fischer and Jeanette Speck. They were represented by counsel from Messina Law Firm and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The defendants were New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, the New Jersey Education Association, and the Township of Ocean Education Association. The governor was represented by counsel from the office of Attorney General of New Jersey and the unions were represented by counsel from Bredhoff & Kaiser and Zazzali Fagella Nowak Kleinbaum & Friedman.

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

    • November 2, 2018: The plaintiffs in Fischer v. Murphy first filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. One plaintiff was a union member while the other chose to pay agency fees rather than join. The plaintiffs’ claim challenged the constitutionality of both agency fees and union dues deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued dues deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status. The plaintiffs requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, compensatory and nominal damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.
    • January 28, 2019: The defendants submitted an answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a response and a motion for summary judgment.
    • November 27, 2019: The district court issued an opinion in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim and terminating the case.
    • December 18, 2019: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
    • January 15, 2021: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.
    • June 11, 2021: The plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.
    • November 1, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

    On November 27, 2019, Judge Renee Bumb issued an opinion in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim. Bumb wrote:[4]

    “ Ultimately, this Court finds that the union dues authorizations, signed by Plaintiffs, were valid and enforceable contracts. Additionally, because the Union Defendants’ deduction of representation fees from non-member employees was conducted in good-faith reliance on the Supreme Court decision overruled by Janus, Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977), the Court declines to order retrospective monetary relief.[7] ”

    Bumb was appointed by President George W. Bush (R).

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

    On January 15, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit—Judges Patty Shwartz, Peter Phipps, and D. Michael Fisher—affirmed the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey's decision. Shwartz wrote:[8]

    “ Plaintiffs chose to enter into membership agreements with NJEA, rather than abstain from membership and, instead, pay nonmember agency fees. They did so in exchange for valuable consideration. By signing the agreements, Plaintiffs assumed the risk that subsequent changes in the law could alter the cost-benefit balance of their bargain. Because Janus does not abrogate or supersede Plaintiffs’ contractual obligations, which arise out of longstanding, commonlaw principles of “general applicability,” ... Janus does not give Plaintiffs the right to terminate their commitments to pay union dues unless and until those commitments expire under the plain terms of their membership agreements.

    Therefore, the District Court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs’ challenge to their membership agreements fails.[7]

    		”

    Fisher was appointed to the court in 2003 by President George W. Bush (R). Shwartz joined the court in 2013 after being appointed by President Barack Obama (D). Phipps was appointed in 2019 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.[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 PacerMonitor, “Fischer et al v. New Jersey Education Association et al,” accessed May 19, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, “Susan Fischer, et al v. Governor of New Jersey, et al,” accessed May 19, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Court Listener, “Fischer et al v. New Jersey Education Association et al: Class Action Complaint,” November 2, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, “Fischer et al v. New Jersey Education Association et al: Opinion,” November 27, 2019
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-1751," accessed June 28, 2021
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List 595 U.S.," November 1, 2021
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Casetext, "Fischer v. Governor of N.J." January 15, 2021
    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=Fischer_v._Murphy&oldid=9203512"