Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Lee v. Ohio Education Association
 | |
| Lee v. Ohio Education Association | |
| Case number: 20-422 | |
| Status: Closed | |
| Important dates | |
| Filed: June 25, 2018 District court decision: March 25, 2019 Appeals court decision: Feb. 24, 2020 Supreme Court decision: Jan. 25, 2021 | |
| District court outcome | |
| The plaintiff’s claims were moot because fair-share fee collection had ended, and the defendants acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection. | |
| Appeals court outcome | |
| Affirmed the district court's decision. | |
| Supreme Court outcome | |
| Certiorari review denied. | |
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.
Lee v. Ohio Education Association was terminated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on February 24, 2020. The suit sought refunds for mandatory fair-share fees the Ohio Education Association and its affiliates charged to non-union members before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. The Supreme Court denied review of the case on January 25, 2021.[1]
Procedural history
The plaintiff was Sarah R. Lee. She was represented by Mitchell Law. The defendants were J. Richard Lumpe, Aaron A. Schmidt, W. Craig Zimpler, Avon Lake City School District, National Education Association, Avon Lake Education Association, and Ohio Education Association. J. Richard Lumpe, Aaron A. Schmidt, and W. Craig Zimpler were represented by the Office of the Attorney General. Avon Lake City School District was represented by Squire Patton Boggs. The National Education Association, Avon Lake Education Association, and Ohio Education Association were represented by Schwarzwald, McNair & Fusco, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Schwarzwald, McNair & Fusco, and the Office of General Counsel.
The plaintiff in Lee v. Ohio Education Association first filed her lawsuit on June 25, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The plaintiff, a public school teacher, argued that compulsatory fair-share fees imposed by the Ohio Education Association and its affiliates were a violation of constitutional rights. Lee sought to certify a class of plaintiffs including all non-union member employees charged fair-share fees, and sought refunds for all fair-share fees collected.
- June 25, 2018: Lee filed a class action complaint against the Ohio Education Association, Avon Lake Education Association, National Education Association, Avon Lake City School District, John Kasich (R), Gov. Mike DeWine (R), W. Criag Zimpher, Aaron A. Schmidt, and J. Richard Lumpe.
- August 13, 2018: Defendants John Kasich and Mike DeWine were dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff.
- September 10, 2018: The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that they acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection.
- March 25, 2019: The court dismissed the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were moot because fair-share fees collection had ended following Janus, and that the defendants acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection. The plaintiff appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- February 25, 2020: The court affirmed the ruling of the lower court.
- September 28, 2020: The plaintiff appealed the appellate court's decision to the United States Supreme Court.
- January 25, 2021: The Supreme Court denied certiorari review.
For a list of available case documents, click here.
Decision
On March 25, 2019, Judge John R. Adams dismissed the suit as moot and ruled that the defendants acted in good faith under the law at the time of action. Adams wrote the following in the court's opinion:
| “ | Janus, as detailed above, used broad language that immediately made it unconstitutional for unions to extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. There is no dispute that NEA immediately ceased collecting such fees. Accordingly, any request for injunctive relief is MOOT. In a similar fashion, Lee amended her complaint in the hope of creating a factual issue surrounding NEA’s good faith defense. Lee contends that this Court cannot dismiss the matter because NEA must demonstrate factually that it complied with prior Supreme Court precedent and that its decision-makers subjectively believed that the precedent was correct. The Court finds no merit in such a contention. First, Lee’s assertion regarding the subjective belief of members of NEA cannot withstand scrutiny. The entity acts solely through its actions. Those actions included collecting fees under Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), a Supreme Court decision that expressly permitted such actions. Even if an employee strongly believed that Abood was wrongly decided, it would not make reliance on that decision any less good-faith reliance. Rather, regardless of personal opinions, individuals are entitled to rely upon binding United States Supreme Court precedent.[2] | ” |
| —Judge John R. Adams | ||
John R. Adams was appointed in 2003 by President George W. Bush (R).
On February 25, 2020, Judges Martha Daughtrey, Eric Clay, and Richard Griffin affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Griffin wrote the following in the court's opinion:
| “ | Since Wyatt, a consensus has emerged among the lower courts that “while a private party acting under color of state law does not enjoy qualified immunity from suit, it is entitled to raise a good-faith defense to liability under section 1983.” It is not surprising then that the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and each of the district courts to have considered the precise issue before us have all concluded that the good-faith defense precludes claims brought under § 1983 for a return of fair-share fees collected under the Abood regime. We now add our voice to that chorus. The Union was authorized by Ohio law and binding Supreme Court precedent to collect agency fees. “Until [Janus] said otherwise, [the Union] had a legal right to receive and spend fair-share fees collected from nonmembers as long as it complied with state law and the Abood line of cases. It did not demonstrate bad faith when it followed these rules.” Accordingly, we hold that the district court properly granted the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s §1983 claim because the Union’s reliance on existing authority satisfied the good-faith defense as a matter of law.[2] | ” |
| —Judge Richard Griffin | ||
Judge Martha Daughtrey was appointed in 1993 and Judge Eric Clay was appointed in 1997 by President Bill Clinton (D). Richard Griffin was appointed in 2005 by President George W. Bush (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.[1]
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.[1]
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."[1]
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
Click show to view a list of cases with links to our in-depth coverage.
See also
- Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023
- Janus v. AFSCME
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
External links
Case documents
Supreme Court
Appeals court
Trial court
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, “Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint,” June 25, 2018
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, “Memorandum of Opinion and Order,” March 25, 2019
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-422," accessed May 24, 2021 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "SCOTUS" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "SCOTUS" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "SCOTUS" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||||
