Nguyen v. Admin. and Residual Employees Union

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nguyen v. Admin. and Residual Employees Union
Case number: 3:19-cv-01351-MPS
Status: Dismissed
Important dates
Filed: September 2, 2019
District court decision: January 3, 2020
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
Dismissed

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.

Nguyen et al v. Admin and Residual Employees Union was dismissed after the parties reached a settlement. The order to close the case was filed on January 3, 2020. In Nguyen v. Admin, the plaintiff felt their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because Nguyen sent several official letters of resignation from the Residual Employees Union yet the union continued to take dues from the plaintiff’s paycheck.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Phuong Kim Nguyen and Van Nguyen. The defendants were the Administrative and Residual Employees Union and John Disette.
  • The issue: The issue being litigated is whether or not The Admin and Residual Employees Union violated the Plaintiffs’ rights by continually taking monthly dues despite the Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to leave the organization.
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Michael P. Shea. Judge Shea joined the court in 2012 after being nominated by President Barack Obama.
  • The outcome:Case Dismissed
  • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Phuong Kim Nguyen and Van Nguyen. They were represented by The Fishbein Law Firm And The Fairness Center. The defendants were the Administrative and Residual Employees Union, Local 4200. They were represented by Ferguson, Doyle and Springer and Bredhoff and Kaiser. The plaintiffs in Nguyen v. Admin. and Residual Employees Union first filed their lawsuit on September 9, 2019, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut..

    • September 9, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Court.
    • November 4, 2019: Judge Shea ordered a Dismissal with Prejudice parties involved in the case reaching a settlement in principle.
    • December 1, 2019: Notice by Plaintiff Phuong Kim Nguyen to re-open the file because the parties did not in fact reach a final settlement agreement.
    • December 2, 2019: Order to reopen granted by Judge Shea-but for a limited time of 21 days.
    • December 27, 2019: Order for dismissal due to a final settlement being reached and the Plaintiff’s request for a voluntary dismissal
    • January 3, 2020: Case Dismissed

    Note substantive procedural events in chronological order (date of arguments, if applicable, for example) using bullet points.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    District court decision: Dismissed

    • January 3, 2020: Judge Shea ordered a dismissal based on a settlement agreement and filing from the Plaintiff requesting a voluntary dismissal.
    • December 2, 2019: Judge Shea ordered the case to be reopened for a limited time so the parties involved could reach a settlement agreement.
    • December 1, 2019: The Plaintiff provided a notice to reopen the case based on a settlement agreement not being reached.
    • November 4, 2019: Judge Shea ordered dismissal with prejudice based on parties reaching a statement in principle.
    • September 2, 2019: The initial complaint was filed against all the defendants.


    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

    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.

    See also

    External links

    Case documents

    Trial court

    Footnotes