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

Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine
Case number: 0:18-civil-02201
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: August 10, 2018
District court decision: December 3, 2018
Appeals court decision: October 4, 2019
District court outcome
The district court ruled that Maine state law authorizing a faculty union elected by an employee majority to bargain both collectively and exclusively on behalf of all employees does not violate an individual worker’s First Amendment right to free speech and association.
Appeals court outcome
The appellate court upheld the district court’s decision.

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.

Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine was decided by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 4, 2019. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the decision of a district court, which had held that public-sector unions can legitimately act as exclusive bargaining agents without violating an individual worker’s First Amendment rights. The plaintiff sought to use precedent from Janus v. AFSCME to challenge the status of the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine as an exclusive bargaining representative. 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]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Jonathan Reisman. The defendants were the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine, the Board of Trustees of the University of Maine System, the University of Maine, and the State of Maine.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, does a Maine state law authorizing a faculty union elected by an employee majority to bargain both collectively and exclusively on behalf of all employees violate an individual worker’s First Amendment right to free speech and association?
  • The presiding judge(s): A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was convened to consider the case. The panel comprised Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson, Bruce Marshall Selya, and David Barron. Barron and Thompson were appointed to the court by President Barack Obama (D). Selya was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan (R).
  • The outcome: The appellate panel upheld the district court ruling, stating that the union’s role as an exclusive bargaining representative does not violate the First Amendment rights of non-members.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Jonathan Reisman. He was represented by counsel from Baker & Hostetler LLP, Bergen & Parkinson LLC, and the Buckeye Institute. The defendants were the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine, the Board of Trustees of the University of Maine System, the University of Maine, and the State of Maine. The associated Faculties of the University of Maine was represented by counsel from Troubh Heisler PA, Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC, and the National Education Association.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5]

    • August 10, 2018: The plaintiff in Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine first filed the lawsuit on August 10, 2018. The plaintiff alleged his constitutional right to free speech and association was violated by Maine state law allowing an employee elected faculty union to bargain collectively and exclusively for all employees. The lawsuit cited new precedent in Janus v. AFSCME as grounds for challenging the union’s status as an exclusive bargaining representative.
    • August 16, 2018: The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.[6]
    • September 21, 2018: The defendants filed a response to the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
    • September 21, 2018: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for failure to state a claim.
    • October 5, 2018: The plaintiff filed a response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
    • December 3, 2018: The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
    • December 7, 2018: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
    • October 4, 2019: The appellate court upheld the district court ruling.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On December 3, 2018, Judge Jon D. Levy issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.[4] Judge Levy wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    Under the Act, the Union was not, as Reisman asserts, appointed by the Board as his representative and agent. Instead, it was selected by a majority vote of the employees to serve as their bargaining-unit’s agent. 26 M.R.S.A. § 1025. And by authorizing the Union, in its role as the agent for the bargaining-unit, to negotiate with the Board on matters related to the terms and conditions of employment, id. at § 1025(2)(B), the Act does not cloak the Union with the authority to speak on issues of public concern on behalf of employees, such as Reisman, who do not belong to the Union. Reisman remains free to speak out in opposition to the Union and its positions as he sees fit. His constitutional challenge to the Act thus rests on a fundamental misconception. The Union is not, as Reisman appears to believe, his individual agent. Rather, the Union is the agent for the bargaining-unit which is a distinct entity separate from the individual employees who comprise it. [7]

    		”
    —Judge Levy

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

    Appellate court decision

    On October 4, 2019, a three-judge panel comprised Judges Rogeriee Thompson, Bruce Marshall Selya, and David Barron issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.[5] Judge Barron wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “

    Considered in context, then, § 1025(2)(E) is not properly read to designate AFUM as Reisman's personal representative, as he contends. Rather, that provision merely makes clear that a union, once it becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, must represent the unit as an entity, and not only certain of the employees within it, and then solely for the purposes of collective bargaining. Nor are the other provisions that Reisman relies on properly read to support his contention. In fact, their plain terms accord with this more limited understanding of the statute, see id. § 1022(1-B) (noting that a bargaining agent "has as one of its primary purposes the representation of employees in their employment relations with employers" (emphasis added)); id. § 1025(1) (stating that an "employee organization" may be voluntarily recognized as a unit's bargaining agent when it "alleg[es] that a majority of the . . . employees in an appropriate bargaining unit . . . wish to be represented for the purpose of collective bargaining" (emphasis added)).

    If there were any doubt about the correctness of this construction, moreover, we would be in no position to discard it in favor of Reisman's. The text of the statute, when considered in its entirety, by no means compels his view, and the Attorney General of Maine plausibly contends that, under the statute, "the union is the agent for the bargaining unit, which is a distinct entity separate from the individual employees."[7]

    		”

    Barron and Thompson were appointed to the court by President Barack Obama (D). Selya was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan (R).

    The decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to take up the case.[8]

    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

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, “REISMAN v. ASSOCIATED FACULTIES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE et al,” accessed August 4, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Reisman v. Assoc'd Faculties of the Univ., et al,” accessed August 4, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, “Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine: Complaint,” August 10, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 PacerMonitor, “Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine: Order on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” December 3, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 PacerMonitor, “Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine: Opinion,” October 4, 2019
    6. ↑ PacerMonitor, “Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine: Motion for a Preliminary Injunction”, August 16, 2018
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine: Docket," accessed November 16, 2020
    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=Reisman_v._Associated_Faculties_of_the_University_of_Maine&oldid=9203565"