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

Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees
Case number: 2:18-cv-01745
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Dec. 19, 2018
District court decision:
July 17, 2020
Appeals court decision:
March 28, 2022
District court decision (on remand):
Nov. 18, 2022
District court outcome
The district court ruled in favor of the defendants.
Appeals court outcome
The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case back to the district court.

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.

Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees was decided by Judge Sarah Daggett Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on November 18, 2022. Morrison ruled in favor of the defendant.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarized the case as follows: "Littler brought this action, alleging that OAPSE failed to honor her constitutional right to freedom of speech when it continued to deduct dues from her paycheck after she asked to withdraw. OAPSE responded that it was entitled to collect the dues according to Littler’s signed membership agreement because Littler never validly withdrew her authorization."[1]

Morrison first issued a ruling in favor of the defendant on July 17, 2020. Littler appealed this ruling to the Sixth Circuit. On July 29, 2021, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to allow Littler to present evidence in response to one of OAPSE's arguments and to address OAPSE's claim that it was not a state actor.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Christina Littler. The defendant was the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE).
  • The presiding judges: Judge Sarah Daggett Morrison presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Senior Judge Helene White, Judge John Nalbandian, and Judge Chad Readler—presided over the case in the Sixth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Christina Littler. Attorneys from Strip Hoppers Leithart McGrath & Terlecky Co, Mitchell Law PLLC, and Talcott Franklin PC represented Littler. The defendant was the Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE). Attorneys from Bredhoff & Kaiser represented OAPSE.

    Littler, a public school bus driver, filed a lawsuit against OAPSE and the South-Western City School District on December 19, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Littler, who said she joined OAPSE only because non-union members were charged agency fees, asked the court to certify a class including non-union members required to pay agency fees, union members who would not have joined the union if informed of their right to decline union membership, and union members who would not have joined the union if non-union members were not charged agency fees.[2]

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[3][4][1][5]

    • December 19, 2018: Littler filed a lawsuit against OAPSE and the South-Western City School District.
    • March 11, 2019: Defendant OAPSE filed an answer to the complaint, saying that Littler did not have standing to represent a class of non-union members charged agency fees because she was a union member, and saying that they acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection.
    • March 29, 2019: Defendant South-Western City School District filed an answer to the complaint, saying that Littler did not have standing, and that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME did not apply retroactively.
    • July 16, 2019: Littler filed an amended complaint.
    • August 20, 2019: Defendant South-Western City School District was dismissed from the lawsuit.
    • November 15, 2019: Littler filed a motion for class certification.
    • April 14, 2020: The court denied Littler’s motion for class certification, saying that Littler had a conflict of interest with members of the proposed class who wished to support the union and that Littler could not represent a class of agency fee payers when she was a union member who did not pay agency fees.
    • July 17, 2020: Judge Sarah Daggett Morrison granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
    • July 27, 2020: Littler appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
    • July 29, 2021: The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to allow Littler to present evidence in response to one of OAPSE's arguments and to address OAPSE's claim that it was not a state actor.
    • November 18, 2022: Morrison granted OAPSE's renewed motion for summary judgment.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision (2020)

    On July 17, 2020, Judge Sarah Daggett Morrison granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Morrison wrote:[6]

    “ As this Court has previously explained in a factually similar case: 'To the extent Plaintiffs' argument relies on the fact that the [Membership Card] does not explicitly say "You do not have to join the union," they identify no support for the idea that such talismanic words are constitutionally required.' The Constitution requires only that when Ms. Littler signed the Membership Card, she was aware of her right not to join the union and she was aware that signing the card would require her to pay union dues and be bound by the Membership Card's terms. ... No reasonable jury could conclude that Ms. Littler lacked awareness of these facts.

    In the wake of Janus, every district court to have examined the issue has held that 'employees who voluntarily chose to join a union are bound by the terms of [their signed agreements] and cannot renege on their promises to pay union dues.' ... This Court agrees. ...

    Because the Court concludes that Ms. Littler validly waived her right to avoid paying full union dues by signing the Membership Card, the Court need not address whether Ms. Littler’s state law claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Employment Relations Board. All of Ms. Littler’s state law claims are premised on the idea that OAPSE wrongfully seized her money. As explained above, OAPSE deducted Ms. Littler’s union dues in line with the contract to which she agreed. Because there was no wrongful seizure, these state law claims fail on the merits for the same reason as Ms. Littler’s § 1983 claims.[7]

    		”

    President Donald Trump (R) appointed Morrison to the court.

    Appellate court decision (2022)

    On July 29, 2021, a three-judge panel—Senior Judge Helene White, Judge John Nalbandian, and Judge Chad Readler—reversed and remanded the case back to the district court. White wrote:[1]

    “

    Before a court can grant summary judgment 'on grounds not raised by a party,' the parties must be provided 'notice and a reasonable time to respond.' ... It is not clear that OAPSE ever took the position, during litigation or otherwise, that Littler’s email withdrawal was ineffective due to a failure to send the email to the OAPSE treasurer. Thus, it is not surprising that the evidence and argument presented by Littler to the district court did not focus on this issue. Regardless whether Littler herself moved for summary judgment, she was not on notice to submit evidence or argument regarding the recipients of her attempted withdrawal.

    Admittedly, it is unlikely Littler would have been able to present evidence that her attempted withdrawal was sent to the OAPSE treasurer, given the absence of such an email address in the email exchanges reflected in the record. However, it is not impossible that such an exchange occurred outside the documents included in the record and deciding the issue without providing Littler an opportunity to present additional evidence was improper. And, even if the withdrawal attempts were never sent to the OAPSE treasurer, it is possible that given the opportunity to present additional evidence, Littler could prove that it was nevertheless received by the treasurer or that such a requirement was waived by OAPSE. ... Accordingly, the district court should not have granted summary judgment on this basis absent an opportunity for Littler to respond. ...

    Thus, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand to the district court with instructions to provide Littler the opportunity to present evidence and argument regarding the requirement that she submit any withdrawal to the OAPSE treasurer.

    Separately, we note that the district court declined to address OAPSE’s argument that it is not a state actor subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, preferring to decide the case on alternative grounds. Although such an approach was within the district court’s discretion, given the importance of the issue to the viability of this lawsuit, and the fact-intensive nature of such a determination, the district court should reconsider whether to address this issue on remand.[7]

    		”

    President George W. Bush (R) appointed White to the court. President Donald Trump (R) appointed Nalbandian and Readler.

    District court decision (2022)

    On November 18, 2022, Morrison granted OAPSE's renewed motion for summary judgment, writing:[5]

    “

    On July 17, 2020, this Court issued an Opinion and Order granting summary judgment to OAPSE and finding, among other things, that Ms. Littler was not entitled to First Amendment protections while she was a union member and that she had failed to withdraw her union membership. ... Ms. Littler appealed. ...

    The Circuit Court issued its decision on March 28, 2022. ... It agreed that Ms. Littler was not entitled to First Amendment protections for the deduction of her union dues while she was a member. ... However, because Ms. Littler did not receive an adequate opportunity to present evidence that she complied with certain withdrawal requirements, it found that this Court’s determination on that issue was improper. ... The Circuit Court directed this Court to reconsider its decision to not address whether OAPSE was a state actor and remanded the case for further proceedings. ...

    On remand, Ms. Littler’s remaining § 1983 and state law claims are based on OAPSE’s continued deduction of membership dues after she withdrew from the union. OAPSE filed the instant motion addressing those remaining claims, which is fully briefed and ripe for consideration. ...

    ... OAPSE’s right to collect membership dues was created by the private agreement between it and Ms. Littler—not Ohio law. In fact, the deduction of membership dues without employee consent is inconsistent with Ohio law. ... SWCSD had no role in the administration of employee authorizations; this too was controlled by OASPE’s agreements with its members. Thus, Littler’s dispute with OAPSE is whether it breached the terms of their private agreement. This is insufficient to create a public-private nexus. Ms. Littler has failed to demonstrate that OAPSE’s challenged action constitutes state action under the nexus test. ...

    OAPSE’s action is not fairly attributable to the State under the joint action test.

    Because OAPSE is not a state actor, its motion for summary judgment is GRANTED on Ms. Littler’s § 1983 claims. ...

    Having dismissed Ms. Little’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.[7]

    		”


    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.[8]

    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.[8]

    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."[8]

    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 (on remand)

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, "On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio," March 28, 2022
    2. ↑ U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, "Plaintiff’s Class-Action Complaint," December 19, 2018
    3. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees et al," accessed December 5, 2022
    4. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Christina Littler v. OH Assn of Pub School Empl," accessed December 5, 2022
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, "Opinion and Order," November 18, 2022
    6. ↑ Opinion and Order," July 17, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 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=Littler_v._Ohio_Association_of_Public_School_Employees&oldid=9203518"