It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!

James v. SEIU Local 688

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
James v. SEIU Local 688
Case number: 2:19-cv-00053
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Jan. 17, 2019
District court decision:
July 14, 2020
District court outcome
The court approved the voluntary dismissal of the case with prejudice.

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.

James v. SEIU Local 688 was voluntarily dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 14, 2020.[1] The suit challenged maintenance of membership provisions that restricted union resignation to a 15-day window at the expiration of collective bargaining agreements.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Megan M. James, William A. Lester, and Angela Pease. The defendants were Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 688, Steve Catanese, Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Gerard Oleksiak, Thomas W. Wolf, Michael Newsome, and Anna Maria Kiehl.
  • The issue: Can unions require members to remain members throughout the duration of collective bargaining agreements based on maintenance of membership provisions, despite employees' wishes to resign?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Cathy Bissoon was appointed to the case. Bissoon was appointed in 2011 by President Barack Obama (D).
  • The outcome: The suit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on July 14, 2020.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Megan M. James, William A. Lester, and Angela Pease. They were represented by The Fairness Center. The defendants were SEIU Local 688, Steve Catanese, Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Gerard Oleksiak, Thomas W. Wolf, Michael Newsome, and Anna Maria Kiehl. SEIU Local 688 and Catanese were represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP and Willig, Williams & Davidson. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, Oleksiak, Wolf, Newsome, and Kiehl were represented by the Office of Attorney General.

    The plaintiffs in James v. SEIU Local 688 first filed their lawsuit on January 17, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs argued that maintenance of membership provisions prevented them from resigning union membership outside of a 15-day window at the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement and that these provisions violated their constitutional rights under Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiffs asked the court to require the union to accept their previously submitted resignations and additionally sought refunds for dues collected after the date of resignation.[2]

    • January 17, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a complaint against all defendants.
    • March 29, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they acted in good faith based on the law at the time.
    • April 9, 2019: Defendant Stephen Catanese was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.
    • June 14, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings until a side letter agreement by the SEIU Local 668 was ratified. The side letter agreement allowed public employees to resign union membership at any time, removing maintenance of membership provisions.
    • July 13, 2020: The plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of action by stipulation of dismissal.
    • July 14, 2020: Judge Cathy Bissoon signed an order approving the notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Outcome

    The plaintiffs stated the following in their notice of dismissal:[3]

    “

    Local 668 and Plaintiffs have engaged in discussions and information exchanging activities and, as a result, the Parties now agree that the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Complaint have been resolved in their entirety, and that dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety is therefore appropriate.[4]

    		”


    On July 14, 2020, Judge Cathy Bissoon signed an order approving the notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Bissoon was appointed to the court in 2011 by President Barack Obama (D).

    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.[5]

    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.[5]

    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."[5]

    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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ PacerMonitor, "James et al v. Service Employees International Union, Local 668 et al," accessed May 24, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, "Complaint - Class Action," January 17, 2019
    3. ↑ The Fairness Center, "Voluntary dismissal of action by stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)," July 13, 2020
    4. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 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=James_v._SEIU_Local_688&oldid=9203560"