Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Loescher v. Teamsters Local 320

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Loescher v. Teamsters Local 320
Case number: 20-1540
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: May 21, 2019
District court decision:
Feb. 26, 2020
Appeals court decision:
May 15, 2020
District court outcome
The court dismissed the suit, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims failed because Janus v. AFSCME concerned non-union members, not union members.
Appeals court outcome
Settlement

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.

Loescher v. Teamsters Local 320 was a case in which the plaintiff sought refunds for all union dues collected before and after she resigned union membership, arguing that she only joined the union because non-members were required to pay fair-share fees.[1] The case was settled on May 4, 2020, after being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on March 11, 2020.[2][3] The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota had dismissed the suit on February 26, 2020.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Laura Loescher. The defendants were Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320, and Independent School District No. 831.
  • The issue: Must the Teamsters Local 320 refund union dues collected from a reluctant union member?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Wilhelmina Wright presided over the district court proceedings.
  • The outcome: The case was settled on May 4, 2020.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Laura Loescher. She was represented by Upper Midwest Law Center and Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC. The defendants were the Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320, and Independent School District No. 831. Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320 was represented by Willig, Williams & Davidson, and Kelly & Lemmons. Independent School District No. 831 was represented by Ratwik Roszak & Maloney.

    Loescher first filed her lawsuit on May 21, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Loescher argued that she joined the Teamsters Local 320 union only because non-members were forced to pay fair-share fees, and that she attempted to resign membership after the Janus v. AFSCME ruling but was forced to continue to pay union dues until a 15-day opt-out window. Loescher argued that this violated her First Amendment rights under Janus and sought refunds for all union dues collected before and after she resigned membership.[1]

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[2][3][4]

    • May 21, 2019: Loescher filed a complaint against all defendants.
    • July 2, 2019: The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that Loescher had a contractual obligation to pay dues until the opt-out window and that they acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection. Additionally, the union refunded dues taken from Loescher’s paychecks after the date she resigned membership, which they argued made her claim for refunds after the date of her resignation moot.
    • July 23, 2019: Loescher filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
    • July 30, 2019: The defendants filed responses to the plaintiff’s opposition, arguing that Loescher had a contractual obligation to pay dues until the opt-out window and that they acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection.
    • February 26, 2020: The court dismissed the suit, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims failed because Janus concerned non-union members, not union members. Additionally, the plaintiff had not presented any retrospective relief that the union had not already provided by refunding dues collected after her resignation.
    • March 11, 2020: Loescher appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
    • May 4, 2020: Loescher filed a letter claiming that the parties reached a settlement, she would not be filing a brief, and that she would be filing a dismissal agreement.
    • May 15, 2020: The case was terminated.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On February 26, 2020, Judge Wilhelmina Wright dismissed the suit. Wright wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “ Loescher does not claim that she applied for union membership because either Local Union 320 or School District 831 threatened her with physical force. She claims, instead, that “she chose to apply for membership in Local [Union] 320 because she would have been forced to continue paying either dues or ‘fair-share fees’ as a condition of employment, or be terminated.” These allegations suggest financial duress, a cause of action that is not recognized under Minnesota law. ... To the extent these allegations imply a threat by either Local Union 320 or School District 831 to enforce the demand of paying either the dues or fair-share fees, the threat does not constitute duress because the underlying practice was understood to be lawful when the demand was made. ... Moreover, Loescher concedes in the complaint that “she chose to apply for membership in Local [Union] 320 because ... the difference in money between the full membership dues and the ‘fair-share fees’ would not have been worth the loss of her vote and whatever little influence she might have been able to assert in collective-bargaining matters.” As such, Loescher’s decision to apply for union membership was a calculated decision, not the result of a lack of free will. For these reasons, Loescher’s duress theory fails as a matter of law.[6] ”

    Wright was appointed in 2015 by President Barack Obama (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

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, "Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss," July 23, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, "Loescher v. Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320 et al," accessed May 24, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Laura Loescher v. Minnesota Teamsters Public and, et al," accessed May 24, 2021
    4. ↑ CourtListener, “Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,” accessed May 7, 2020
    5. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, "Order granting defendants' motions to dismiss," February 26, 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=Loescher_v._Teamsters_Local_320&oldid=9203453"