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

Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13
Case number: 22-373
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Nov. 7, 2019
District court decision:
May 20, 2021
Appeals court decision:
July 20, 2022
Supreme Court decision:
Nov. 14, 2022
District court outcome
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case.
Appeals court outcome
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.
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.

Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13 was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on July 20, 2022. The Third Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania's May 2021 dismissal of the case, a class-action lawsuit seeking a refund of agency fees paid before the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME.[1] The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition on November 14, 2022.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were David Schaszberger, Bradford Schmittle, Kyle Clouse, Colby Conner, Jeanette Hulse, and Gary Landiak. The defendant was American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 13.
  • The issue: 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?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Malachy Mannion presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge panel—Judge Joseph Greenaway and Senior Judges Anthony Scirica and Marjorie Rendell—presided over the case in the Third Circuit.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania's dismissal of the case. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were David Schaszberger, Bradford Schmittle, Kyle Clouse, Colby Conner, Jeanette Hulse, and Gary Landiak, represented by counsel from the Liberty Justice Center, Beckley & Madden, and the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation. The defendant was the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 13, represented by counsel from Bredhoff & Kaiser and Willig, Williams & Davidson.

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

    • November 7, 2019: The plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
    • January 6, 2020: The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
    • January 10, 2020: The defendant filed a joint motion to stay the case.
    • January 17, 2020: The court issued an order granting the motion to stay.
    • December 8, 2020: The defendant filed a motion to lift the stay.
    • December 9, 2020: The court issued an order granting the motion to lift the stay.
    • December 18, 2020: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
    • May 20, 2021: Judge Malachy Mannion dismissed the case.
    • June 18, 2021: The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
    • July 20, 2022: A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • October 18, 2022: The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.
    • November 14, 2022: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On May 20, 2021, Judge Malachy Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. Mannion wrote:[6]

    “

    This court concurs with the now well-settled caselaw that has dismissed claims identical to those raised by plaintiffs in their [first amended complaint (FAC)], including the Third Circuit and five other Circuit Courts as well as numerous other district courts. ...

    The court again concurs with the courts in [Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Ass’n] and [Hartnett v. Pennsylvania State Education Association], and holds that our plaintiffs’ request for declarative judgment in their FAC is moot based on Janus and, based on the undisputed fact that AFSCME stopped collecting fair-share fees from state non-union member employees, including plaintiffs, following the Janus decision. As AFSCME indicates ... the Janus decision and its subsequent cessation of collecting fair share fees from state non-union member employees “occurred more than one year before Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and more than two years before Plaintiffs filed their [FAC], and there is no reasonable likelihood that the collection of fair share fees will reoccur.” [10]

    		”

    President Barack Obama appointed Mannion to the court.

    Appellate court decision

    On July 20, 2022, a three-judge panel—Judge Joseph Greenaway and Senior Judges Anthony Scirica and Marjorie Rendell—affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. Scirica wrote:[7]

    “

    The District Court granted AFSCME’s motion to dismiss, finding AFSCME was shielded from liability by virtue of its good faith reliance on then-controlling Supreme Court precedent and state law. Because we find AFSCME was entitled to a good faith defense, we will affirm. ...

    [W]e join a growing list of our sister circuits in recognizing a good faith defense for § 1983 private defendants who relied on then-controlling Supreme Court precedent and then-existing state law. ... Because AFSCME relied in good faith on both Janus and 71 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 575, it is entitled to a good faith defense. [10]

    		”

    President Barack Obama (D) appointed Greenaway to the court, President Ronald Reagan (R) appointed Scirica, and President Bill Clinton (D) appointed Rendell.

    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.[11]

    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.[11]

    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."[11]

    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. ↑ In Janus, the Supreme Court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay union agency fees as a condition of employment.
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Schaszberger et al v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 13," accessed July 21, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "David Schaszberger, et al v. AFSCME," accessed July 21, 2022
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 PacerMonitor, “Complaint (Class Action),” November 7, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 PacerMonitor, “Amended Complaint (Class Action)," December 18, 2020
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 PacerMonitor, "Memorandum," May 20, 2021
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 PacerMonitor, "Opinion," July 20, 2022
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 22-373," accessed November 20, 2022
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List: 598 U.S.," November 14, 2022
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 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=Schaszberger_v._AFSCME_Council_13&oldid=9203464"