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

Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District
Case number: 2:18-cv-04146
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: September 25, 2018
District court decision: September 24, 2019
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
The plaintiff’s claims were moot.

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.

Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District was terminated on September 24, 2019, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff argued that maintenance of membership provisions, which restricted union resignation to opt-out windows at the expiration of collective bargaining agreements, violated his First Amendment rights under Janus v. AFSCME.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Michael A. Mayer. The defendants were the Wallingforld-Swarthmore School District, Teamsters Local No. 312, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Lisa Palmer, and Ferguson Abbott.
  • The issue: May unions enforce maintenance of membership provisions restricting union resignation to opt-out windows at the expiration of collective bargaining agreements?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Cynthia Rufe was assigned to the case. Rufe was appointed to the court in 2002 by President George W. Bush (R).
  • The outcome: The plaintiff’s claims were moot because the union honored his resignation request and refunded dues collected after his resignation.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Michael A. Mayer. He was represented by the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation. The defendants were the Wallingforld-Swarthmore School District, Teamsters Local No. 312, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Lisa Palmer, and Ferguson Abbott. Teamsters Local No. 312 was represented by O'Donoghue & O'Donoghue, LLP. The Wallingforld-Swarthmore School District, Lisa Palmer, and Ferguson Abbott were represented by Fox Rothschild LLP.

    The plaintiff in Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District first filed his lawsuit on September 25, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mayer argued that maintenance of membership provisions, which restricted union resignation to 15-day opt-out windows at the expiration of collective bargaining agreements, violated his First Amendment rights under Janus v. AFSCME . He sought refunds for dues collected after the date of his attempted resignation, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.[1]

    • September 25, 2018: Mayer filed a complaint against all defendants.
    • October 23, 2018: Mayer filed an amended complaint.
    • November 14, 2018: Defendant Teamsters Local No. 312 filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that because they had since honored Mayer’s request to resign membership and refunded dues collected after his resignation, his claims were moot.
    • November 30, 2018: Defendants Lisa Palmer and Ferguson Abbott filed a motion to dismiss.
    • December 3, 2018: Defendant Wallingforld-Swarthmore School District filed a motion to dismiss.
    • December 17, 2018: The court granted a motion for the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Josh Shapiro (D) to intervene.
    • January 7, 2019: Intervener Josh Shapiro filed a motion to dismiss.
    • September 24, 2019: The court dismissed the suit as moot.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    On September 24, 2019, Judge Cynthia Rufe dismissed the case as moot. Rufe wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ Since Janus was decided, numerous courts have ruled that cases similar to this one are moot once the dues collection has ended. The reasoning of those cases applies with equal force here. Plaintiff has been refunded for the dues deducted after he resigned from the Union, and therefore he no longer has an interest in the outcome of the litigation as to these claims. Under the voluntary-cessation doctrine, there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated; i.e., that Defendants will act to thwart the change in law occasioned by Janus, which was decided only a month before Plaintiff sent his resignation letter... There is no continuing conduct for the Court to declare unconstitutional, and an injunction that simply directs a defendant to obey the law is improper. Thus, the claims are moot.[2]

    [3]

    		”
    —Judge Cynthia Rufe

    Cynthia Rufe was appointed to the court in 2002 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.[4]

    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.[4]

    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."[4]

    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

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 CourtListener, “Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief,” accessed May 15, 2020
    2. ↑ CourtListener, “Memorandum and Opinion,” accessed May 15, 2020
    3. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 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=Mayer_v._Wallingford-Swathmore_School_District&oldid=9203519"