It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!

Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141
Case number: 20-1378
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Jan. 8, 2019
District court decision:
Dec. 16, 2019
Appeals court decision:
Sept. 23, 2020
Supreme Court decision:
Oct. 4, 2021
District court outcome
The district court ruled that the decision in Janus did not apply to private-sector unions, and agency fee collection by private-sector unions does not violate an individual’s constitutional rights.
Appeals court outcome
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Supreme Court outcome
Certiorari 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.

Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141 was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on September 23, 2020. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiffs sought to have the collection of agency fees under the Railway Labor Act declared unconstitutional. In Janus, the Supreme Court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support union activities. The Third Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's December 2019 dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court denied review of the case on October 4, 2021.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Linda Rizzo-Rupo, Noemieo Oliveira, and Susan Marshall. The defendants were the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO District 141, Local 914; the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141; and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, are agency fees required under the Federal Railway Labor Act unconstitutional?
  • The presiding judges: Judge William Martini presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge appellate panel included Third Circuit Judges Cheryl Ann Krause, Felipe Restrepo, and Stephanos Bibas.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Linda Rizzo-Rupo, Noemieo Oliveira, and Susan Marshall. They were represented by counsel from King, Moench, Hirniak & Mehta LLP and the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation. The defendants were the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO District 141, Local 914; the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141; and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. The defendants were represented by counsel from Guerrieri, Bartos & Roma, PC.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5][6]

    • January 8, 2019: The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs sought to have the collection of agency fees under the Railway Labor Act declared unconstitutional and requested an injunction against agency fee collection, and appropriate compensatory or nominal damages, as well as attorney fees and costs. The complaint sought to apply precedent from Janus v. AFSCME to private-sector union agency fee collection.
    • June 3, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently responded.
    • December 16, 2019: The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim in favor of the defendants.
    • January 16, 2020: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
    • September 23, 2020: A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • March 29, 2021: The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • October 4, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On December 16, 2019, Judge William Martini issued an opinion and order in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. Martini wrote:[4]

    “

    Janus did not overrule Hanson. Janus applies to public sector employees, not private sector employees. See Janus, 138 S. Ct. at 2476, 2473 (public-sector fees involve “the government . . . compel[ling] a person to pay for another party’s speech,” on matters involving “the budget of the government” and “the performance of government services”). The Court in Janus specifically differentiated between Hanson, which “involved Congress’s ‘bare authorization’ of private-sector union shops under the Railway Labor Act,” and Abood, “which failed to appreciate that a very different First Amendment question arises when a State requires its employees to pay agency fees.” Id. at 2479. With respect to a non-consenting employee, the Court held, “this arrangement [in the public sector] violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.” Id. at 2460. In short, Janus stands for the limited proposition that when a government entity and labor organization agree to require government employees to pay agency fees, the First Amendment is implicated in ways dramatically distinct from when agency fees are agreed to in the private sector. Because Plaintiffs here all work for a private company—United Airlines—Janus has no application.[7]

    		”

    Appellate court decision

    On September 23, 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit—Judges Cheryl Ann Krause, Felipe Restrepo, and Stephanos Bibas—affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit. Krause wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “

    Under the Railway Labor Act’s agency-fee provision, private-sector employers and unions may enter agreements requiring non-union employees to finance union activities. See45 U.S.C. § 152, Eleventh(b). In keeping with that provision, United Airlines authorizes Appellees International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, IAM District Lodge 141, and IAM Local 914 to collect fees from United’s non-union employees. Appellants, who pay fees under that agreement, argue that the Act amounts to a facial violation of the First Amendment. Because the District Court correctly recognized that controlling precedent precludes Appellants’ claim, we will affirm. [7]

    		”

    Krause and Restrepo were appointed to the court by President Barack Obama (D). Bibas was 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.[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

    Supreme Court

    Appeals court

    Trial court


    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 PacerMonitor, “RIZZO-RUPON et al v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO DISTRICT 141, LOCAL 914 et al,” accessed August 5, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, “Linda Rizzo-Rupon, et al v. International Association of M, et al,” accessed August 5, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Mackinac Center, “Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141: Complaint,” January 8, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 United District Court for the District of New Jersey, “Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141: Opinion,” December 16, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Justia, "Linda Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of M, No. 20-1106 (3d Cir. 2020)," September 23, 2020
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-1378," accessed October 5, 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=Rizzo-Rupon_v._International_Association_of_Machinists_and_Aerospace_Workers,_District_Lodge_141&oldid=9203494"