LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council
Case number: 19-3484
Status: Closed.
Important dates
Filed: October 18, 2018
District court decision:
September 30, 2019
Appeals court decision:
January 15, 2021
District court outcome
The plaintiff’s claims are moot and have no standing because she is no longer a union member and has been refunded dues withdrawn after her resignation.
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.

On January 15, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s decision in LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council.[1] The lower court had dismissed the case, ruling that LaSpina did not have standing to bring a class action suit against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Pennsylvania State Council seeking refunds of union fees. The plaintiff had asked the court to certify a class action including all employees forced to pay SEIU affiliates against their will and sought refunds for all dues collected from class members.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Bethany LaSpina, a Scranton Public Library employee. The defendants were the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Pennsylvania State Council, SEIU Local 668, SEIU Local 32BJ, SEIU Healthcare PA, Pennsylvania Joint Board of Workers United, Scranton Public Library, and the Lackawanna County Public Library System.
  • The issue: Must SEIU affiliates refund union dues collected from members against their will?
  • The presiding judge(s): Cheryl Ann Krause, Felipe Restrepo, and Stephanos Bibas.
  • The outcome: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s decision. The lower court had dismissed the case, ruling that LaSpina did not have standing to bring a class action suit against SEIU seeking refunds of union fees.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Bethany LaSpina. She was represented by Talcott Franklin PC, Law Offices Of Edmond R. Shinn, Esq., Mitchell Law PLLC, and Zimolong LLC.

    The defendants were SEIU Pennsylvania State Council, SEIU Local 668, SEIU Local 32BJ, SEIU Healthcare PA, Pennsylvania Joint Board of Workers United, Scranton Public Library, and the Lackawanna County Public Library System.

    • SEIU Pennsylvania State Council, Pennsylvania Joint Board of Workers United, and SEIU Local 32BJ were represented by Spear Wilderman, PC, and Spear, Wilderman, Borish, Endy, Spear & Runckel.
    • SEIU Local 668 was represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP and Willig, Williams & Davidson.
    • SEIU Healthcare PA was represented by Willig, Williams & Davidson.

    On October 18, 2018, Bethany LaSpina filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. LaSpina asked the court to certify two classes:[3]

    • Public employees forced to pay fees to SEIU affiliates as a condition of employment (including non-members charged fair-share fees, members who were not told they had a right to decline membership, and members who would not have joined if non-members were not charged fair-share fees).
      • LaSpina sought refunds for all union fees collected from this class.
    • Employees who wished to resign union membership, who would resign if told they had a right to decline, or who would not join if told of their right to decline.
      • LaSpina asked the court to stop SEIU affiliates from withholding dues until the union obtained new fee waivers informing employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME ruling.

    Timeline

    • October 18, 2018: LaSpina filed a complaint against SEIU Pennsylvania State Council, SEIU Local 668, SEIU Local 32BJ, SEIU Healthcare PA, Pennsylvania Joint Board of Workers United, Scranton Public Library, Lackawanna County Public Library System and Lackawanna County.
    • January 2, 2019: LaSpina filed an amended complaint.
    • January 14, 2019: Defendants SEIU Local 32BJ, Pennsylvania Joint Board of Workers United, and SEIU Pennsylvania State Council filed motions to dismiss, arguing that LaSpina had no standing because she never belonged to SEIU Healthcare PA, SEIU Local 32BJ, or the Pennsylvania Joint Board of Workers United. Additionally, Lackawanna County was voluntarily dismissed from the suit by the plaintiff.
    • January 28, 2019: LaSpina filed a second amended complaint.
    • February 11, 2019: Defendant SEIU Local 668 filed a motion to dismiss. Additionally, LaSpina filed a brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss, arguing she had standing regardless of not having union membership in several of the SEIU affiliates because she was suing as a class representative.
    • February 25, 2019: Defendants Lackawanna County Public Library System, Pennsylvania Joint Board of Workers United, SEIU Healthcare PA, SEIU Local 32BJ, SEIU Local 668, SEIU Pennsylvania State Council, and Scranton Public Library filed a reply brief, arguing that plaintiffs must have individual standing to pursue a class action. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council filed a brief in support of the other defendant’s arguments.
    • March 11, 2019: SEIU Local 668 filed a reply brief to their motion to dismiss, arguing that because the plaintiff’s membership resignation was accepted and the union refunded all withheld dues, her claims were moot. Likewise, because the plaintiff was no longer a union member, they argued that her claim seeking injunctive relief for new union fee waivers lacked standing.
    • May 3, 2019: Defendant Scranton Public Library argued that the plaintiff’s claims lacked standing and her claims for dues refunds were moot because she was refunded.
    • August 29, 2019: The court dismissed SEIU Local 32BJ, the Pennsylvania Joint Board of Workers United, and SEIU Healthcare PA from the suit because the plaintiff was never a member of those unions and cannot certify a class without individual standing.
    • September 11, 2019: The court dismissed defendant SEIU Pennsylvania State Council from the case for the same reason as the previous defendants.
    • September 24, 2019: Lackawanna County Library System is dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff.
    • September 30, 2019: The court dismissed the remaining defendants, SEIU Local 668 and Scranton Public Library, arguing that her claims for refunds for union dues were moot and that because she was no longer a member of the union she lacked standing for her remaining claims.
    • October 26, 2019: The plaintiff appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
    • January 15, 2021: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

    On September 30, 2019, Judge Malachy Mannion, a Barack Obama (D) appointee, dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing and mootness. Mannion wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “ Plaintiff is no longer a member of Local 668. Plaintiff no longer has standing to request that SPL and Local 668 obtain post-Janus authorizations from other employees and members of the union and, to request that the other employees be advised of their rights to resign from the union and withhold the payments due to the union, since she resigned her membership in August 2018 and has no intention of joining the union… Thus, she has no injury that she is suffering from or will suffer from if SPL and Local 668 do not obtain the authorizations or waivers from current union members or future members. The law is clear that the plaintiff must have standing regarding each of her claims throughout the case, and that “if developments occurring during the course of adjudication eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of a suit, then a federal court must dismiss the case as moot.”[5] ”
    —Judge Malachy Mannion

    United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

    On January 15, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s decision.

    The three-judge panel—Judges Cheryl Ann Krause, Felipe Restrepo, and Stephanos Bibas—unanimously affirmed the district court’s ruling.

    Writing for the court, Restrepo said:[1]

    “

    LaSpina had no standing to seek a refund of any portion of the Union dues she made prior to Janus because she cannot tie the payment of those dues to the Union’s unconstitutional deduction of fair-share fees from nonmembers. In addition, if LaSpina is due a refund of certain monies that were deducted from her wages after she resigned, the claim is not a federal one; rather, it is, if anything, a state court claim for conversion or trespass to chattels. Finally, LaSpina’s claim that the Union may not collect any dues from an employee until that employee knowingly and freely waives their constitutional right to resign from Union membership and withhold payments to the Union is moot as LaSpina no longer is a Union member. [5]

    		”

    Krause and Restrepo were appointed by Obama. Bibas was appointed by 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). The court ruled that public-sector unions cannot compel the non-member employees they represent to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union activities.[6]

    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.[6]

    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."[6]

    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 United States Courts, "Bethany LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council et al.," January 15, 2021
    2. ↑ CourtListener, “Second Amended Complaint - Class Action,” accessed May 6, 2020
    3. ↑ U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Second Amended Complaint - Class Action," January 28, 2019
    4. ↑ U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Bethany LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council et al.," September 30, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 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=LaSpina_v._SEIU_Pennsylvania_State_Council&oldid=9203439"