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

Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State
Case number: 1:19-cv-00395
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: March 6, 2019
District court decision: April 22, 2020
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
The suit was voluntarily dismissed by the 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.

Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State was dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on April 22, 2020. The plaintiff challenged maintenance of membership provisions restricting union membership resignation to opt-out windows, and alleged that union membership was presented to him as a condition of employment.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was John R. Kabler Jr. The defendants were Wendell W. Young IV, Thomas W. Wolf, United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), Pennsylvania Wine and Spirits Council, UFCW Local 1776 Keystone State, Peg Rhodes, Michael Newsome, Anna Maria Kiehl, Michele L. Kessler, Timothy Holden, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
  • The issue: Can unions maintain employees’ union membership despite resignation requests based upon maintenance of membership provisions, including in cases where union membership was presented as a condition of employment?
  • The presiding judge(s): Sylvia Rambo was assigned to the case. Rambo was appointed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter (D).
  • The outcome: All of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed by the court except for his request for refunds for dues collected after his membership resignation. The remaining claim was dismissed after the plaintiff requested voluntary dismissal.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was John R. Kabler Jr. He was represented by The Fairness Center. The defendants were Wendell W. Young IV, Thomas W. Wolf, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Pennsylvania Wine and Spirits Council, UFCW Local 1776 Keystone State, Peg Rhodes, Michael Newsome, Anna Maria Kiehl, Michele L. Kessler, Timothy Holden, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They were represented by the Pennsylvania Office Of Attorney General and Willig, Williams & Davidson.

    The plaintiff in Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State first filed his lawsuit on March 6, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Kabler alleged UFCW officials told him union membership was required as a condition of employment. Kabler later attempted to resign union membership but was prevented from resigning outside of a 15-day opt-out window at the end of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The plaintiff argued that this violated his First Amendment rights under Janus v. AFSCME and called for the defendants to expunge Article 4 of the CBA concerning maintenance of membership provisions, which restricted union resignation to opt-out windows. Kabler also challenged the union’s designation as his exclusive bargaining representative. The plaintiff called for the union to honor his request for membership resignation, and sought refunds for all union dues collected.[1]

    • March 6, 2019: Kabler filed a complaint against all defendants.
    • May 6, 2019: The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that because the plaintiff was no longer a union member, and had been refunded all union dues since the date of resignation, his claims were moot.
    • July 19, 2019: The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Kabler never requested his union membership end before Janus, that he signed a valid private contract agreeing to dues deductions, that the union acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection, and that the plaintiff’s claims were moot because he was no longer a union member.[2] Additionally, the plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that while the union accepted his resignation 27 days after he filed the lawsuit, they had not refunded his union dues from the date of his attempted resignation.[3]
    • December 11, 2019: Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal for all of Kabler’s claims, except for his request for refunds for dues collected after his membership resignation.[4]
    • March 31, 2020: The court dismissed all of Kabler’s claims except for his request for refunds for dues collected after his membership resignation.[5]
    • April 21, 2020: Kabler filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the suit.
    • April 22, 2020: The court dismissed the suit.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    On March 31, 2020, Judge Sylvia Rambo dismissed all of Kabler’s claims except for his request for refunds for dues collected after his membership resignation. Rambo wrote the following in the court's opinion:=

    “ Count 1 could be read to imply Plaintiff is complaining of the Union's status as an exclusive representative—a claim which Plaintiff agrees is legally barred. The court will thus dismiss, with prejudice, any claim constitutionally challenging the Union's ability to serve as exclusive representative of a group of employees… Regarding Count 4, the court agrees with the Union Defendants that Plaintiff's fraud claim is barred by Pennsylvania's unfair labor practices claim, which operates as the Plaintiff's exclusive remedy for the complained-of conduct… Here, the gravamen of Plaintiff's Count 4 common law fraud claim is that the Union Defendants deprived him of the right to refrain from joining the Union by tricking him into believing he needed to join the Union to keep his job. Thus, his claim at least arguably falls within Section 1101.1301, granting the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim.[6] ”
    —Judge Sylvia Rambo

    Sylvia Rambo was appointed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter (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.[7]

    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.[7]

    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."[7]

    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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 The Fairness Center, “Complaint,” accessed May 01, 2020
    2. ↑ The Fairness Center, “Union Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgement,” accessed May 01, 2020
    3. ↑ The Fairness Center, “Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgement,” accessed May 01, 2020
    4. ↑ The Legal, “Memorandum,” accessed May 01, 2020
    5. ↑ The Leagle, “Memorandum,” accessed May 01, 2020
    6. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 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=Kabler_v._United_Food_and_Commercial_Workers_Union,_Local_1776_Keystone_State&oldid=9203515"