Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Leitch v. AFSCME

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Leitch v. AFSCME
Case number: 21-29
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: May 1, 2019
District court decision:
Jan. 30, 2020
Appeals court decision:
Feb. 3, 2021
Supreme Court decision:
Oct. 4, 2021
District court outcome
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the case.
Appeals court outcome
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari 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.

Leitch v. AFSCME was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 3, 2021. The plaintiffs' class-action suit sought refunds for fair-share fees collected from non-union members prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the suit in January 2020, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit. Eventually, the parties filed a joint motion for summary affirmance, which the court granted on February 3, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied review of the case on October 4, 2021.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Blake Leitch, Sheri Lash, Beth Pollo, Heidi Parent, Jim Sodaro, Toni Head, Connie Ameter, Tairance McGee, and Jack DeHeve. The defendant was the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, AFL-CIO.
  • The issue: Must unions refund fair-share fees collected from non-union members before Janus?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Jorge L. Alonso presided over the district court case. The three-judge appellate panel included Seventh Circuit Judges Michael Kanne, David Hamilton, and Michael B. Brennan.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois's dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Blake Leitch, Sheri Lash, Beth Pollo, Heidi Parent, Jim Sodaro, Toni Head, Connie Ameter, Tairance McGee, and Jack DeHeve. They were represented by the Liberty Justice Center and the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation. The defendant was the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, AFL-CIO. They were represented by Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC.

    The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on May 1, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs, public employees who were non-union members, sought refunds for mandatory fair-share fees withheld from their paychecks prior to the Janus decision.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][4]

    • May 1, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a complaint against AFSCME Council 31 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
    • June 6, 2019: AFSCME Council 31 filed a motion to dismiss.
    • June 21, 2019: The court ruled to stay the case.
    • January 7, 2020: Defendant AFSCME Council 31 filed a motion to lift the stay and dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction.
    • January 30, 2020: The court granted the defendant’s motions and dismissed the suit.
    • March 5, 2020: The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
    • March 20, 2020: The plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the case.
    • March 26, July 9, and October 14, 2020: The court ruled to stay the case pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 (a distinct case from the 2018 Supreme Court ruling), concerning fair-share fee refunds.
    • January 25, 2021: The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31.
    • February 1, 2021: The parties filed a joint motion for summary affirmance.
    • February 3, 2021: The Seventh Circuit granted the motion and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.
    • July 6, 2021: The plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • October 4, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    On January 30, 2020, Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case.[1]

    On February 3, 2021, Seventh Circuit Judges Michael Kanne, David Hamilton, and Michael B. Brennan affirmed Alonso's ruling.[2]

    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. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, "Leitch et al v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, AFL-CIO," accessed March 22, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, "Blake Lietch, et al v. Council 31 of the American Fed," accessed March 22, 2021
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 19-1104," accessed March 22, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 21-29," accessed October 6, 2021
    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=Leitch_v._AFSCME&oldid=9203501"