Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers
Case number: 20-1705
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: July 13, 2018
District court decision:
May 1, 2020
Appeals court decision:
April 13, 2021
District court outcome
The district court ruled that public-sector unions cannot be held liable for agency fees or union dues paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME.
Appeals court outcome
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

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.

Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 13, 2021.[1] The lawsuit was previously dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 1, 2020.[2]

The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint prior to the decision 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 paid to the union, 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.[3][4][5][6]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Scott Pellegrino and Christine VanOstrand. The defendants were New York State United Teachers, the United Teachers of Northport, the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), Attorney General Letitia James (D), Robert Hite, and John Wirenius.
  • The issue: 1) 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? 2) Can public sector unions be held liable for union fees paid prior to Janus by members who would have withdrawn from the union if they had been able to refuse agency fee collection?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Nicholas Garaufis presided over the district court proceedings. Judge Garaufis was appointed by President Bill Clinton (D).
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Scott Pellegrino and Christine VanOstrand, both public school teachers. They were represented by counsel from Mitchell Law PLLC. The defendants were New York State United Teachers, the United Teachers of Northport, the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), Attorney General Letitia James (D), Robert Hite, and John Wirenius. New York State United Teachers was represented by counsel from New York State United Teachers and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.[3][4] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[3][4][5][6]

    • June 13, 2018: The plaintiffs in Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers first filed their lawsuit on June 13, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs filed an initial 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 paid to the union, costs, and attorney’s fees. VanOstrand filed on behalf of all non-members in order to enjoin against agency fee collection and Pellegrino on behalf of all members who would have withdrawn from the union had there been an option to refuse agency fee payment.
    • April 26, 2019: The case was reassigned from Judge Joan Azrack to Judge Nicholaus Garaufis and Chief Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann.
    • June 6, 2019: The defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs subsequently responded and the defendants replied.
    • April 30, 2020: the district court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint.
    • June 1, 2020: An appeal was docketed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
    • April 13, 2021: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On April 30, 2020, Judge Nicholas Garaufis issued an opinion and order in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim.[6] Judge Garaufis wrote the following in the court's opinion:[6]

    “

    As a result of Janus and its aftermath, Plaintiffs have consented to the dismissal of several of their claims. Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims against the State Defendants (see Mem. in Opp. to State Defs. Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 51) at 2) and all claims against Northport-East (see Mem. in Opp. to Northport-East Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 54) at 2). Therefore, the State Defendants’ and Northport-East’s motions to dismiss are GRANTED.

    Additionally, Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss certain claims against the Union Defendants, including (1) Plaintiff’s state-law claims, (2) Plaintiff’s constitutional challenges to N.Y. Civil Service Law §§ 208(1)(b)(i) and 208(4)(a), and (3) Plaintiff’s claims for prospective relief. (See Opp. to Union Mot. at 20.) The Union Defendants’ motion is therefore GRANTED as to these claims. …

    Remaining are Plaintiffs’ claims related to the payment of preJanus agency fees and union dues up to the amount of agency fees. (See Compl. ¶ 45.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Union Defendant’s promptly ceased collecting agency fees after Janus was decided, but seek monetary damages for the agency fees collected prior to Janus. (Opp. to Union Mot. at 20-22.) However, recent controlling precedent dooms these claims as well.

    This month, the Second Circuit decided Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001, 955 F.3d 332, 2020 WL 1870162 (2d Cir. 2020). Wholean and this case are close factual analogues. There, as here, the plaintiffs alleged that mandatory collection of fair-share fees as a condition of employment was unconstitutional. Id. at *1. There, as here, the defendants ceased collection of fair-share fees when Janus was decided, and the plaintiffs sought to recover monetary damages for pre-Janus fees. Id. at *2. Finally, there, as here, the defendants moved to dismiss the claim for pre-Janus fees based on the good faith defense. Id.

    Because Wholean is nearly identical to the case at hand, its holding—“that a party who complied with directly controlling Supreme Court precedent in collecting fair-share fees cannot be held liable for monetary damages under § 1983,” id. at *2— completely forecloses Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim. Therefore, the Union Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.[7]

    		”

    Judge Garaufis was appointed by President Bill Clinton (D).

    Appellate court decision

    According to the New York Law Journal:[8]

    “

    The ruling, from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, found that the union, New York State United Teachers, was not required to return agency fees it had collected from nonmembers under pre-Janus controlling high court precedent and valid state statutes.

    The holding also reaffirmed a previous Second Circuit which allowed another union to retain fees it had collected in good faith.

    “Wholean set out a general rule for applying the good-faith affirmative defense in the context of Janus: so long as a union is alleged to have collected funds in reliance on then-effective law, it has no obligation to repay those funds when the law is later overturned,” the panel said in a five-page summary order. “That rule controls here.”[7]

    		”

    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

    Trial court

    Footnotes
    1. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers," accessed May 23, 2021
    2. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Pellegrino et al v. New York State United Teachers et al," accessed May 23, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 PacerMonitor, “Pellegrino et al v. New York State United Teachers et al,” accessed July 31, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, “Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers,” accessed July 31, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 PacerMonitor, “Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers: Plaintiffs’ Class-Action Complaint,” June 13, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 PacerMonitor, “Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers: Memorandum and Order,” April 30, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ New York Law Journal, "2nd Circuit Nixes Post-'Janus' Union Fee Challenge in Affirming Good-Faith Defense," April 13, 2021
    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=Pellegrino_v._New_York_State_United_Teachers&oldid=9203538"