Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Nearman v. SEIU Local 503
![]() | |
Nearman v. SEIU Local 503 | |
Case number: 6:18-cv-00730 | |
Status: Terminated | |
Important dates | |
Filed: April 25, 2018 District court decision: August 20, 2018 Appeals court decision: | |
District court outcome | |
The suit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in light of the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. |
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.
Nearman v. SEIU Local 503 was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on August 20, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The suit challenged the constitutionality of fair-share fees required for non-union members.
Procedural history
The plaintiff was Debora Nearman. She was represented by the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation and Gibson Law Firm. The defendants were SEIU Local 503 OPEU, Director of Fish and Wildlife Curt Melcher, and Katy Coba. SEIU Local 503 was represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP and Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost. Curt Melcher and Katy Coba were represented by the Oregon Department Of Justice.
The plaintiff in Nearman v. SEIU Local 503 first filed her lawsuit on April 25, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiff, a non-union member, was compelled to pay fair-share fees to SEIU as a condition of employment. Nearman argued that the union opposed her religious and political views as well as campaigned against the candidacy of her husband Rep. Mike Nearman (R), and that being compelled to subsidize the union violated her First Amendment rights. Nearman sought refunds for all fair-share fees collected, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
- April 25, 2018: Nearman filed a complaint against all defendants.
- August 14, 2018: Nearman filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal in light of the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling in Janus v. AFSCME.
- August 20, 2018: The court terminated the case.
For a list of available case documents, click here.
Decision
On August 20, 2018, Judge Jolie Russo terminated the case after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit.
Jolie Russo was appointed as a federal magistrate judge upon the recommendation of a merit selection panel in 2016.
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.[1]
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.[1]
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."[1]
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
Click show to view a list of cases with links to our in-depth coverage.
See also
- Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023
- Janus v. AFSCME
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
External links
Case documents
Trial court
Footnotes
|