Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Molina v. SEIU Local 668

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Molina v. SEIU Local 668
Case number: 1:19-cv-00019
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: January 7, 2019
District court decision: May 8, 2020
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
Union dues contracts signed by voluntary members, including maintenance of membership provisions, do not violate the First Amendment.

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.

Molina v. SEIU Local 668 was dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on May 8, 2020. The plaintiff challenged maintenance of membership provisions restricting union membership resignation to 15-day opt-out windows.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Francisco Molina. The defendants were the Pennsylvania Social Service Union Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 668, Stephen Catanese, and the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners.
  • The issue: Do maintenance of membership provisions in union dues contracts violate the First Amendment?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Jennifer Philpott Wilson was assigned to the case. Wilson was appointed to the court in 2019 by President Donald Trump (R).
  • The outcome: Union dues contracts signed by voluntary members, including maintenance of membership provisions, do not violate the First Amendment.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Francisco Molina. He was represented by The Fairness Center. The defendants were the Pennsylvania Social Service Union SEIU Local 668, Stephen Catanese, and the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners. The Pennsylvania Social Service Union SEIU Local 668 and Stephen Catanese were represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP and Willig, Williams & Davidson. The Lehigh County Board of Commissioners was represented by Thomas M. Caffrey, Esq.

    The plaintiff in Molina v. SEIU Local 668 first filed his lawsuit on January 7, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The suit challenged maintenance of membership provisions in SEIU Local 668’s collective bargaining agreement, which restricted union resignation to 15-day opt-out windows. The plaintiff argued that these provisions violated the First Amendment under Janus v. AFSCME, and sought refunds for union dues withdrawn after his attempted resignation, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.[1]

    • January 7, 2019: Molina filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania Social Service Union SEIU Local 668, Stephen Catanese, Lehigh County Board of Commissioners, Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth Services, M. Judith Johnston, and Phil Armstrong.
    • January 28, 2019: The defendants Lehigh County Board of Commissioners, Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth Services, M. Judith Johnston, and Phil Armstrong filed a motion to dismiss.
    • February 11, 2019: Molina filed an amended complaint, removing the defendants Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth Services, M. Judith Johnston, and Phil Armstrong from the suit.
    • March 4, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that because Molina was no longer a County employee, and because SEIU had since refunded dues collected after Molina’s union resignation, his prospective claims were moot.[2]
    • June 4, 2019: The district court heard oral arguments.
    • July 18, 2019: The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for prospective relief in agreement with the defendants’ motion to dismiss arguments.[3]
    • October 4, 2019: Defendant SEIU Local 668 filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the remaining claims, arguing that the plaintiff voluntarily joined the union so his claims were meritless.[4]
    • October 8, 2019: Defendant Lehigh County Board of Commissioners filed an amended motion for summary judgment.
    • May 8, 2020: The court dismissed the case and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    On May 8, 2020, Judge Jennifer Philpott Wilson dismissed the suit. Wilson wrote the following in the court's opinion:

    “ The animating principle of Janus was not that the payment of union dues violates the First Amendment, but rather that compelling non-union members to support a union by paying fees violates the First Amendment. Molina agreed to pay union dues as part of a contract with the union in exchange for union membership, so deducting union dues from his paycheck does not violate his rights under the First Amendment.[5][6] ”
    —Judge Jennifer Philpott Wilson

    Jennifer Philpott Wilson was appointed to the court in 2019 by President Donald Trump (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.[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

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 CourtListener, “Complaint,” accessed May 21, 2020
    2. ↑ CourtListener, “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss by SEIU Local 668 and Stephen Catanese,” accessed May 21, 2020
    3. ↑ CourtListener, “Memorandum,” accessed May 21, 2020
    4. ↑ The Fairness Center, “Defendant Local 668’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgement,” accessed May 22, 2020
    5. ↑ CourtListener, “Memorandum,” accessed May 21, 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=Molina_v._SEIU_Local_668&oldid=9203474"