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

Piekarski v. AFSCME Council 5

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Piekarski v. AFSCME Council 5
Case number: 0:18-cv-02384; 21-1372
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Aug. 14, 2018
District court decision:
Feb. 12, 2021
Appeals court decision:
July 25, 2022
District court outcome
The district court ruled in favor of the defendants.
Appeals court outcome
The Eighth 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.

Piekarski v. AFSCME Council 5 was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on July 25, 2022. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota's 2021 ruling in favor of the defendants.[1]

This lawsuit, which was filed on August 14, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements made prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiffs asked the court to block the enforcement of such agreements and grant compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.[2] Judge Susan Richard Nelson ruled in favor of the defendants on February 12, 2021.[3] Plaintiff Thomas Piekarski appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on February 16, 2021.[4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The original plaintiff was Jayme Prokes, an employee of Scott County Health and Human Services. The case was appealed by plaintiff Thomas Piekarski, a Minnesota Department of Transportation employee. The defendants were the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 (AFSCME Council 5); the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 Local 2440; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
  • The issues: 1. In light of Janus v. AFSCME, can public sector unions be held liable for union fees paid prior to Janus by members who would have withdrawn from the union if they had been able to refuse agency fee collection? 2. 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 judges: Judge Susan Richard Nelson presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Judges James Loken, Steven Colloton, and Bobby Shepherd—presided over the case in the Eighth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota's ruling in favor of the defendants.

    • Procedural history

    The original plaintiff was Jayme Prokes, an employee of Scott County Health and Human Services. Thomas Piekarski and Randall C. Eason, Minnesota Department of Transportation employees, were added as plaintiffs in an amended complaint. Eason was dismissed during the proceedings. The plaintiffs were represented in the district court by counsel from Seaton, Peters & Revnew, PA, the Corcoran Law Firm, Talcott Franklin PC, and Mitchell Law PLLC.

    The defendants were the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 (AFSCME Council 5); the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 Local 2440; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Attorneys from Bredhoff & Kaiser and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees represented the defendants.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[5][6][1]

    • August 14, 2018: Prokes filed a complaint against the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 Local 2440; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
    • October 15, 2018: The defendants answered the plaintiff's complaint.
    • April 1, 2019: Prokes, Eason, and Piekarski filed a first amended complaint.
    • May 25, 2019: Eason and Piekarski filed a second amended complaint.
    • June 17, 2019: The defendants answered the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.
    • October 17, 2019: The district court issued an order for partial dismissal with prejudice, dismissing plaintiff Eason.
    • December 13, 2019: A motion hearing was held before the district court and oral arguments were heard.
    • May 27, 2020: U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the plaintiffs’ request to certify the lawsuit as a class action.
    • February 12, 2021: Nelson ruled in favor of the defendants.
    • February 16, 2021: Piekarski appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
    • July 25, 2022: The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On February 12, 2021, Judge Susan Richard Nelson ruled in favor of the defendants in this case and in Hoekman v. Education Minnesota. Nelson wrote:[3]

    “

    This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed in two related cases[.] ... Based on a review of the files, submissions, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons below, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in both cases. ...

    Plaintiffs seek various prospective remedies, including declarations that they cannot be compelled to pay fair-share fees without affirmative consent as required by Janus and an injunction barring the Defendants from violating Janus in the future. Because the Defendants have ceased deducting fair-share fees from Plaintiffs’ paychecks and have averred that Plaintiffs will not be required to pay union fees unless they voluntarily rejoin their unions, Plaintiffs do not have standing for prospective relief. ... Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Defendants as to the Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief as well.[7]

    		”

    Nelson was appointed to the court in 2013 by President Barack Obama (D).


    Appellate court decision

    On July 25, 2022, a three-judge panel—Judges James Loken, Steven Colloton, and Bobby Shepherd—affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of the defendants. Colloton wrote:[1]

    “

    The unions’ reliance on § 179A.06 was objectively reasonable. It is an open question whether subjective intent is relevant to the defense, but the employees did not present a submissible case that the unions collected fair-share fees in subjective bad faith in any event. Therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the unions on these claims. [7]

    		”

    President George H.W. Bush (R) appointed Loken to the court. President George W. Bush (R) appointed Colloton and Shepherd.

    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.[8]

    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.[8]

    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."[8]

    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

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, "Opinion," July 25, 2022 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "opinion" defined multiple times with different content
    2. ↑ PacerMonitor, “Plaintiffs’ Class-Action Complaint,” August 14, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Order," February 12, 2021
    4. ↑ U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, "Notice of Appeal," February 16, 2021
    5. ↑ PacerMonitor, “Prokes v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5 et al,” accessed August 3, 2020
    6. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Thomas Piekarski v. AFSCME, Council No. 5," accessed April 6, 2021
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 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=Piekarski_v._AFSCME_Council_5&oldid=9203534"