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

Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees
Case number: 2:19-cv-03968
Status: Terminated/Settled
Important dates
Filed: September 10, 2019
District court decision: November 11, 2019
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
Voluntary dismissal by plaintiff

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.

Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees was concluded with a settlement between the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on November 11, 2019. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status, if membership was withdrawn outside of a designated time period.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Donna Fizer. The defendants were the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, AFSCME Council 4, and the Ripley Union Lewis Huntington School District Board of Education.
  • The issue: 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?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Sarah Daggett Morrison presided over the district court proceedings. Judge Morrison was appointed by President Donald Trump (R).
  • The outcome: This case resulted in a settlement agreement.
  • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Donna Fizer. She was represented by counsel from Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor, LLC. The defendants were the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, AFSCME Council 4, and the Ripley Union Lewis Huntington School District Board of Education. The union was represented by Thomas C. Drabick and attorneys from Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC.[1] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2]

    • September 10, 2019: The plaintiff in Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees first filed the lawsuit on September 10, 2019, in the Ohio Southern District Court. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status, if membership was withdrawn outside of a designated time period. The plaintiff requested a refund of all dues collected after her withdrawal of membership in September 2018.
    • November 11, 2019: The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. A settlement agreement was negotiated in this case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    A settlement agreement was reached in this case, and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.[1][2]

    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.[3]

    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.[3]

    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."[3]

    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.

    See also

    External links

    Case documents

    Trial court

    Footnotes