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

Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union
Case number: 20-1574
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Dec. 6, 2018
District court decision:
March 26, 2020
Appeals court decision:
Dec. 9, 2020
Supreme Court decision:
Nov. 1, 2021
District court outcome
The district court ruled that public-sector unions cannot be held liable for refunding agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME and that unions can constitutionally act as exclusive bargaining representatives.
Appeals court outcome
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari denied.

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.

Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union was decided on December 9, 2020, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit following the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and fee collection, as well as requests for a refund of all agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees. In Janus, the high court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support union activities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois' March 2020 dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court denied review of the case on November 1, 2021.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Joseph Ocol. The defendants were the Chicago Teachers Union, the American Federation of Teachers, Judy Biggert, Lisa Madigan, Gilbert F. O’Brien, Jr., Lynn Serod, Lara Shayne, and Andrea Waintroob.
  • The issue: Can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding agency fees paid prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which held that such fees are unconstitutional? Additionally, is it constitutional for unions to act as exclusive bargaining representatives?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Harry Leinenweber presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge appellate panel included Seventh Circuit Judges Ilana Rovner, Michael Scudder, and Amy St. Eve.
  • The outcome: The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of the defendants. The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Joseph Ocol. He was represented by counsel from Mitchell Law PLLC. The defendants were the Chicago Teachers Union, the American Federation of Teachers, Judy Biggert, Lisa Madigan, Gilbert F. O’Brien, Jr., Lynn Serod, Lara Shayne, and Andrea Waintroob. The Chicago Teachers Union was represented by counsel from Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][7]

    • December 6, 2018: The plaintiff in Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union first filed his lawsuit on December 6, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff filed an initial class-action complaint following Janus v. AFSCME that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and fee collection, as well as requests for a refund of all agency fees, relief to compensate for reduced salaries due to union salary agreements, costs, and attorney’s fees. The refund of agency fees was sought under state tort law. He contested the constitutionality of the public-sector union’s status as an exclusive bargaining representative, claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights and that the union’s negotiations were not beneficial to members and nonmembers. For example, the plaintiff claimed that salary negotiations done by the unions unfairly suppressed the salaries of new teachers as well as science and math teachers.
    • March 11, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
    • May 1, 2019: The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and deadlines were set for the plaintiff’s response at the motion hearing.
    • June 5, 2019: The plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
    • March 26, 2020: Judge Leinenweber issued an opinion and order of dismissal in favor of the defendants. The civil case was terminated.
    • April 23, 2020: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
    • June 2, 2020: The plaintiff’s brief was filed with the appellate court.
    • June 25, 2020; July 2, 2020: The defendants' briefs were filed with the appellate court.
    • December 9, 2020: The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • May 10, 2021: The plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • November 1, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On March 26, 2020, Judge Harry Leinenweber issued an opinion and order in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. Leinenweber wrote:[4]

    “

    There have been numerous cases throughout the United States seeking state tort relief in lieu of Section 1983 proceedings after Janus, but none has been successful. At least Plaintiff has failed to cite any. The latest such case that denies recovery for fair share fees under state tort law comes from the Sixth Circuit in Lee v. Ohio Education Association, No. 19-3250 (slip op. February 24, 2020). For these reasons the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff’s tort claim for conversion under Illinois law is granted. ...

    Regardless of what Plaintiff thinks of the principle of exclusive representation for public employees and the collective bargaining agreements that result from such exclusive representation, it has been the accepted system in Illinois for the last 35 years and is the system adopted in most sister states. It is difficult to see how such a system can be in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Moreover, since the exclusive bargaining principle has been designated by the Illinois legislature to be the system employed for labor relations for Illinois public employees, the state action exception to the Sherman Act clearly applies. [8]

    		”
    —Judge Leinenweber

    Leinenweber was appointed by President Ronald Reagan (R).

    Appellate court decision

    On December 9, 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—Judges Ilana Rovner, Michael Scudder, and Amy St. Eve—affirmed the district court's ruling. Rovner wrote:[5]

    “

    As Ocol recognizes, our holding in Janus II ... precludes his argument that he is entitled to a refund of his past compulsory fair-share payments. The plaintiff in Janus I, who, like Ocol, had paid fair-share fees under protest to a union designated as the representative of his employee unit (the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services), sought recovery of his past payments. We held that a private party acting under color of state law for § 1983 purposes was entitled to a good-faith defense, which applied to the union’s collection of fair-share fees before the Supreme Court’s decision. ... We thus concluded that Janus was limited to “declaratory and injunctive relief, and a future free of any association with a public union.” ... As Ocol admits, the exact same rationale applies to bar his claim for repayment of past fair-share fees from the Chicago Teachers Union.

    [...]

    As Ocol recognizes, Knight and its progeny firmly establish the constitutionality of exclusive representation, and the Supreme Court is the proper forum for challenging that rule. We thus grant his request for summary affirmance so that he may seek a petition for certiorari to pursue his arguments there.

    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment. [8]

    		”

    Rovner was appointed to the court by President George H.W. Bush (R). Scudder and St. Eve were appointed 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.[9]

    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.[9]

    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."[9]

    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

    Supreme Court

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, "Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union: Plaintiff’s Class-Action Complaint," December 6, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, "Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union et al," accessed July 21, 2020 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacermonitor" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacermonitor" defined multiple times with different content
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union et al," accessed July 21, 2020 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "pacerappeal" defined multiple times with different content
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, "Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union: Memorandum and Opinion Order," March 26, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 PacerMonitor, "No. 20-1668," December 9, 2020
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-1574," accessed September 29, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List 595 U.S.," November 1, 2021
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 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=Ocol_v._Chicago_Teachers_Union&oldid=9203468"