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

Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association
Case number: 19-2391
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Jan. 18, 2017
District court decision:
May 17, 2019
Appeals court decision:
June 25, 2020
District court outcome
The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed as moot in light of Janus v. AFSCME.
Appeals court outcome
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

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.

Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on June 25, 2020. The suit challenged the constitutionality of fair-share fees charged to non-union member public school teachers.[1] The Third Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.[2][3]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Gregory J. Hartnett, Elizabeth M. Galaska, Robert G. Brough, Jr, and John M. Cress. The defendants were the Pennsylvania State Education Association, Homer-Center Education Association, Twin Valley Education Association, Ellwood Area Education Association, Homer-Center School District, Twin Valley School District, and Ellwood City Area School District.
  • The issue: Can unions charge non-members fair-share fees?
  • The presiding judges: A three-judge panel—Judges Michael Chagares, Felipe Restrepo, and Stephanos Bibas—presided over the case in the Third Circuit.
  • The outcome: The Third Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Gregory J. Hartnett, Elizabeth M. Galaska, Robert G. Brough, Jr, and John M. Cress. They were represented by The Fairness Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

    The defendants were the Pennsylvania State Education Association, Homer-Center Education Association, Twin Valley Education Association, Ellwood Area Education Association, Homer-Center School District, Twin Valley School District, and Ellwood City Area School District. They were represented by attorneys from the National Education Association, the Pennsylvania State Education Association, Killian & Gephart, and Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.

    The plaintiffs in Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association first filed their lawsuit on January 18, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs challenged the unions’ procedures for charging fair-share fees to non-members, arguing that the fees violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction preventing the union from collecting fair-share fees.[1]

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[2][3]

    • January 18, 2017: The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania State Education Association, Homer-Center Education Association, Twin Valley Education Association, Ellwood Area Education Association, Homer-Center School District, Twin Valley School District, and Ellwood City Area School District.
    • March 21, 2017: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
    • April 4, 2017: The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that fair-share fees were permitted under Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
    • June 26, 2017: The court dismissed the defendants Ellwood City School District, Homer-Center School District, and Twin Valley School District from the suit.
    • October 2, 2017: The plaintiffs asked the court to stay proceedings until the resolution of Janus v. AFSCME. The court granted the stay.
    • September 14, 2018: The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs' claims were moot in light of Janus.[4]
    • May 17, 2019: The court found the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot in light of changes the union made after the Janus ruling, such as ceasing fair-share fee collection. The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed.[5]
    • June 13, 2019: The plaintiffs appealed the suit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
    • June 25, 2020: The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court

    On May 17, 2019, Judge Yvette Kane dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims as moot. Kane wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “ The Change in circumstances that has occurred here as to these Plaintiffs in the wake of the Janus Decision, specifically consisting of: (1) the PSEA’s immediate steps to cease collection of “fair-share” union fees from all non-members of its local union affiliates (including the four Plaintiffs) and to refund any “fair share” fees collected after the date of the Janus decision; (2) the declarations of the superintendents of each school district employing Plaintiffs stating that those districts have ceased deduction of “fair share” fees and will not resume such deductions in the future; (3) the declarations from the respective Presidents of Defendants H-CEA, TVEA, and EAEA representing that the “fair share” fee provisions in their CBAs are not valid or enforceable, and that they will not seek to collect further “fair share” fees; and (4) the Memoranda of Understanding entered into between the Homer-Center School District and the H-CEA and Ellwood Area School District and the EAEA, formally removing the unenforceable provisions from their CBAs, demonstrate that it has become “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” In light of the changed circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs face no realistic possibility that they will be subject to the unlawful collection of “fair share” fees, and, therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot.[6] ”

    Yvette Kane was appointed to the court in 1998 by President Bill Clinton (D).

    Appeals court

    A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit—Judges Michael Chagares, Felipe Restrepo, and Stephanos Bibas—considered the case. Bibas wrote the following in the court's opinion:[7]

    “

    Just because a statute may be unconstitutional does not mean that a federal court may declare it so. If there is no real dispute over a statute’s scope or enforceability, we must dismiss any suit attacking it, no matter how obvious the result may seem.

    A group of public-school teachers challenged a Pennsylvania statute that authorizes their local unions to deduct fees from their paychecks even though they do not belong to the union. After the Supreme Court invalidated another state’s similar statute, the parties all agreed that Pennsylvania’s law was unenforceable too.

    The District Court correctly held that this development mooted this case. The parties no longer dispute whether the statute is enforceable, and there is no reason to think that anyone will try to collect agency fees from these teachers again. If a court is to formally declare the statute unconstitutional, that will have to await a future case in which the parties earnestly dispute its validity.

    [...]

    It may seem odd that unconstitutional laws remain on the books. But until a party faces a real threat of enforcement, a statute is mere words on a page, and federal courts cannot opine on its validity.

    At the start of this suit, the teachers faced ongoing harm from the unions’ collection of agency fees. That got them through the courthouse doors. But once the Supreme Court made clear that public-sector agency fees are unconstitutional, the unions emphatically disclaimed any intent to enforce the challenged statute. Because the teachers have nothing to fear, we will affirm. [6]

    		”

    Chagares was appointed in 2006 by President George W. Bush (R). Restrepo was appointed in 2016 by President Barack Obama (D). Bibas was appointed in 2017 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.[8]

    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.[8]

    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."[8]

    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

    Trial court

    Appeals court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 The Fairness Center, “First Amended Complaint,” March 21, 2017
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Hartnett et al v. Pennsylvania State Education Association et al," accessed June 27, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Gregory Hartnett, et al v. Pennsylvania State Education A, et al," accessed June 27, 2021
    4. ↑ The Fairness Center, "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment," September 14, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Casetext, “Memorandum,” May 17, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, "No. 19-2391," June 25, 2020
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 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=Hartnett_v._Penn._State_Education_Association&oldid=9203551"