Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 1
Case number: 20-486
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Oct. 15, 2018
District court decision:
July 17, 2019
Appeals court decision:
March 5, 2020
Supreme Court decision:
Jan. 25, 2021
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME.
Appeals court outcome
Affirmed district court’s decision.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari review 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.

Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 1 was decided by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 5, 2020. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the decision of a district court, which had held that public-sector unions cannot be held liable for agency fees collected prior to Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiff had filed an initial complaint following Janus 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 unions' non-political activities.[1][2][3][4][5] The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review on January 25, 2021.[6]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Nathaniel Ogle. The defendants were the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 1 and the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 1, AFL-CIO.
  • 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?
  • The presiding judge(s): A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was convened to consider the case. The panel comprised Judges Jeffrey Sutton, John K. Bush, and Chad Readler. Judge Sutton was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush (R). Judges Bush and Readler were appointed to the court by President Donald Trump (R).
  • The outcome: The appellate panel ruled that the union had acted in good faith and accordance with the law when it collected agency fees and, therefore, could not be held liable for refunding these fees. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review on January 25, 2021.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Nathaniel Ogle. During his appeal, he was represented by counsel from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Taft, Stettinius & Hollister. The defendants for the appeal were the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 1 and the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 1, AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO was not named in the initial trial. The defendants were represented by counsel from the Ohio Civil Service Employees Assoc and Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5][6]

    • October 15, 2018: The plaintiff in Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 1 first filed his class-action lawsuit on October 15, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The initial complaint 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.
    • December 17, 2018: The union filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.
    • July 17, 2019: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.
    • July 26, 2019: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
    • March 5, 2020: The appellate court upheld the district court decision in favor of the defendants.
    • October 8, 2020: The plaintiff appealed the appellate court's decision to the United States Supreme Court.
    • January 25, 2021: The Supreme Court denied certiorari review.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On July 17, 2019, Judge George Smith, granted the defendants motion to dismiss citing the claim to a good-faith defense.[4] Judge wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    Ogle argues that OCSEA is masking qualified immunity as a good faith defense because OCSEA is asking that the good faith defense apply as a matter of law. In other words, Ogle argues that OCSEA is asking for an objective analysis which is reserved for qualified immunity and unavailable to OCSEA. Just because the good faith defense applies here as a matter of law does not change the fact that OCSEA’s defense is rooted in good faith and not qualified immunity. Ogle’s argument ignores the reality that the two doctrines perform different functions: qualified immunity is immunity from suit, the good faith defense is a defense to liability. See Wyatt, 504 U.S. at 166 (“Harlow established an ‘immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability’”) (emphasis in original) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). OCSEA is not asking for immunity from suit, they are using a defense to protect them against liability. [7]

    		”
    —Judge Smith

    Judge Smith was appointed by President Ronald Reagan (R).

    Appellate court decision

    On March 5, 2020, the three-judge panel, comprising Judges Jeffrey Sutton, John K. Bush, and Chad Readler unanimously upheld the district court decision in favor of the defendants.[5] Sutton wrote the following in the court’s opinion:[5]

    “

    In a separate appeal from a separate case, our court recently joined two other circuits in holding that public-sector unions that collected “fair share” fees in reliance on Abood may assert a good-faith defense to § 1983 lawsuits that seek the return of those fees. Lee v. Ohio Educ. Ass’n, No. 19-3250, 2020 WL 881265, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2020); see Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 942 F.3d 352, 364–66 (7th Cir. 2019); Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096, 1098–99 (9th Cir. 2019).

    Because we have no license to overrule another panel of this court, we too must recognize the union’s good-faith defense. [7]

    		”
    —Judge Sutton

    Judge Sutton was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush (R). Judges Bush and Readler were appointed to the court 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.[6]

    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.[6]

    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."[6]

    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, "Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11," accessed July 23, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, "Nathaniel Ogle v. Ohio Civil Serv Empl Assoc," accessed July 23, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Court Listener, "Nathaniel Ogle v. Ohio Civil Serv Empl Assoc: Complaint," October 15, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "complaint" defined multiple times with different content
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 PacerMonitor, "Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11: Opinion and Order," July 17, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 PacerMonitor, "Nathaniel Ogle v. Ohio Civil Serv Empl Assoc: Opinion," March 5, 2020
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-486," accessed May 24, 2021 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "SCOTUS" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "SCOTUS" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "SCOTUS" defined multiple times with different content
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    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=Ogle_v._Ohio_Civil_Service_Employees_Association,_AFSCME,_Local_11&oldid=9203452"