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

Hoekman v. Education Minnesota

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hoekman v. Education Minnesota
Case number: 0:18-cv-01686; 21-1366
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: June 18, 2018
District court decision:
Feb. 12, 2021
Appeals court decision:
July 25, 2022
District court outcome
The district court ruled in favor of the defendants.
Appeals court outcome
The Eighth 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.

Hoekman v. Education Minnesota was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on July 25, 2022. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota's 2021 ruling in favor of the defendants.[1]

The original plaintiffs, two Minnesota teachers, filed their lawsuit against Education Minnesota and others on June 18, 2018, alleging that being required to pay fees to the union violated their constitutional rights. The suit sought refunds for non-union member agency fees, as well as union dues collected from union members who would not have joined the union if non-members were not charged agency fees. The plaintiffs also asked the court to prevent the unions from collecting dues without employees' written consent and to require the unions to respect membership resignation requests regardless of the time of year.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Minnesota public school teachers Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul Hanson. The defendants were Education Minnesota, Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, Shakopee Education Association, the National Education Association, and the American Federation of Teachers.
  • The issue: Must unions refund agency fees collected from non-union members and union dues collected from unwilling union members?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Susan Richard Nelson presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Judges James Loken, Steven Colloton, and Bobby Shepherd—presided over the case in the Eighth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota's ruling in favor of the defendants.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Minnesota public school teachers Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul Hanson. Attorneys from the Upper Midwest Law Center, Mitchell Law PLLC, and Talcott Franklin PC represented the plaintiffs.

    The defendants were Education Minnesota, Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, Shakopee Education Association, the National Education Association, and the American Federation of Teachers. Attorneys from Altshuler & Berzon, Gregg M. Corwin & Associates, and Education Minnesota represented the defendants.

    The plaintiffs first filed their lawsuit on June 18, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs sought to certify three separate classes. The first class included non-union member employees required to pay agency fees as a condition of employment. The second class included union members who would not have joined the union if non-members were not charged agency fees. The third class included employees who wished to resign union membership and stop union dues withholding in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, but were prevented from resigning outside of once-yearly opt-out windows. The plaintiffs sought refunds of all agency fees and union dues withdrawn from unwilling union members' pay, asked the court to prevent the unions from collecting dues without employees' written consent, and asked the court to require the unions to accept membership resignation requests regardless of the time of year.[2][3]

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[4][5][1]

    • June 18, 2018: Plaintiffs Deborah York and Linda Hoekman filed a class action complaint against all defendants.
    • October 1, 2018: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Debra J. Aune, Paul Hanson, Carolyn Workman, Aaron Benner, Mary Dee Buros, Stephen Severance, and Andrew Unseth as plaintiffs.
    • November 30, 2018: The defendants filed a brief saying that they acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection and that the Janus decision should not be applied retroactively.
    • July 1, 2019: Plaintiffs Stephen Severance, Andrew Unseth, Carolyn Workman, Deborah York, Debra J. Aune, and Aaron Benner were dismissed from the suit.
    • May 27, 2020: U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the plaintiffs’ request to certify the lawsuit as a class action.
    • February 12, 2021: Nelson ruled in favor of the defendants.
    • February 16, 2021: The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
    • July 25, 2022: The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On February 12, 2021, Judge Susan Richard Nelson ruled in favor of the defendants. Nelson wrote:[6]

    “

    Like every court to consider the issue, the Court finds that the good faith defense bars Hoekman and Hanson’s § 1983 claims for a refund of fair-share fees paid prior to Janus. ... [the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act ('PELRA')] permitted the Education Minnesota Defendants to collect fair-share fees from Hoekman and Hanson, and PELRA’s constitutionality was supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in [Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ. (1977)] and forty years of precedent thereafter. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record indicating that the Education Minnesota Defendants acted with malice, with the knowledge that PELRA was unconstitutional, or otherwise acted in bad faith. Therefore, the Education Minnesota Defendants have established the good faith affirmative defense to Hoekman and Hanson’s § 1983 claims. ...

    Finally, the Court briefly addresses Plaintiffs’ requests for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek various prospective remedies, including declarations that they cannot be compelled to pay fair-share fees without affirmative consent as required by Janus and an injunction barring the Defendants from violating Janus in the future. Because the Defendants have ceased deducting fair-share fees from Plaintiffs’ paychecks and have averred that Plaintiffs will not be required to pay union fees unless they voluntarily rejoin their unions, Plaintiffs do not have standing for prospective relief. ... Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Defendants as to the Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief as well. [7]

    		”

    Nelson was appointed to the court in 2013 by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On July 25, 2022, a three-judge panel—Judges James Loken, Steven Colloton, and Bobby Shepherd—affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of the defendants. Colloton wrote:[1]

    “

    The unions’ reliance on § 179A.06 was objectively reasonable. It is an open question whether subjective intent is relevant to the defense, but the employees did not present a submissible case that the unions collected fair-share fees in subjective bad faith in any event. Therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the unions on these claims. [7]

    		”

    President George H.W. Bush (R) appointed Loken to the court. President George W. Bush (R) appointed Colloton and Shepherd.

    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

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, "Opinion," July 25, 2022 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Court Listener, “Plaintiffs’ Class-Action Complaint,” June 18, 2018
    3. ↑ Court Listener, "Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class-Action Complaint," October 1, 2018
    4. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Hoekman et al v. Education Minnesota et al," accessed March 15, 2021
    5. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Linda Hoekman, et al v. Education Minnesota, et al," accessed April 6, 2021
    6. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Order," February 12, 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. ↑ 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=Hoekman_v._Education_Minnesota&oldid=9203483"