Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Oliver v. SEIU Local 668

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Oliver v. SEIU Local 668
Case number: 2:19-cv-00891
Status: Pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Important dates
Filed: February 28, 2019
District court decision: November 12, 2019
Appeals court decision: Pending
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period, regardless of membership status.
Appeals court outcome
Pending

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.

Oliver v. SEIU Local 668 is a lawsuit pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It was previously dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 11, 2019. The plaintiff initially filed a claim that challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status. The plaintiffs requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, compensatory damages in the amount of all union fees collected since employment and in the amount deducted since Janus v. AFSCME, costs, and attorney’s fees.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff is Shalea Oliver. The defendants are the Service Employees International Union Local 668, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board James Darby, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Teresa Miller, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Office of Administration Michael Newsome, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D), Albert Mezzaroba, and Robert Shoop, Jr.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period, regardless of membership status?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Gerald Austin McHugh, Jr. presided over the district court proceedings. Judge McHugh was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).
  • The outcome: This lawsuit is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff is Shalea Oliver, represented by counsel from the Liberty Justice Center and Beckley & Madden. The defendants are the Service Employees International Union Local 668, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board James Darby, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Teresa Miller, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Office of Administration Michael Newsome, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D), Albert Mezzaroba, and Robert Shoop, Jr. The union is represented by counsel from Altshuler Berzon and Willig Williams & Davidson. Individual defendants are represented by counsel from the office of the attorney general.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4]

    • February 28, 2019: The plaintiff first filed her lawsuit on February 28, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff initially filed a claim that challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status. The plaintiffs requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, compensatory damages in the amount of all union fees collected since employment and in the amount deducted since Janus v. AFSCME, costs, and attorney’s fees. The plaintiff stated that she could not have given affirmative consent to waive her First Amendment right to decline union membership, since the Supreme Court had not yet recognized that right through Janus.
    • May 07, 2019: The defendants filed answers to the plaintiff’s complaint.
    • July 01, 2019: The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
    • August 23, 2019: The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.
    • September 20, 2019: The union and plaintiff each filed responses in opposition to the other’s motion for summary judgment.
    • November 12, 2019: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.
    • December 17, 2019: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    District court decision

    On November 12, 2019, Judge Gerald Austin McHugh, Jr. issued an opinion and order in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.[4] McHugh wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    There was no legal compulsion for her to join [the union] , and the economic advantage in declining membership and paying an agency fee would have been self-evident. Plaintiff contends that if only she had known of a constitutional right to pay nothing for services rendered by the Union—despite knowledge of her right at the time to refuse membership and pay less— she would have declined union membership completely. I can discern no logic in such a position. Plaintiff has not alleged she was actively pressured to join, and the Supreme Court has held that that background social pressure employees may feel to join a union is “no different from the pressure to join a majority party that persons in the minority always feel” and “does not create an unconstitutional inhibition on associational freedom.” Knight v. Minnesota Community College Faculty Association, 465 U.S. 271, 290 (1984). Not surprisingly, other courts have held that “[w]here the employee has a choice of union membership and the employee chooses to join, the union membership money is not coerced. The employee is a union member voluntarily.” [5]

    		”
    —Judge McHugh

    Judge McHugh was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    A decision is pending in Oliver v. SEIU Local 668.[2]

    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

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, "OLIVER v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 668 et al," accessed July 25, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 PacerMonitor, "Shalea Oliver v. Service Employees Internationa, et al," accessed July 25, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Liberty Justice Center, "Oliver v. SEIU Local 668: Complaint," February 28, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 PacerMonitor, "Oliver v. SEIU Local 668: Memorandum," November 12, 2019
    5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 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=Oliver_v._SEIU_Local_668&oldid=9203457"