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

Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress
Case number: 20-1725
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Oct. 24, 2019
District court decision:
Jan. 10, 2020
Appeals court decision:
Jan. 11, 2021
Supreme Court decision
Oct. 4, 2021
District court outcome
Public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME.
Appeals court outcome
The Second 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.

Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on January 11, 2021. The plaintiffs' class-action complaint, which was filed following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, sought refunds of all agency shop fees collected by the defendants from non-union members under New York Civil Service Law § 208 and asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional. In Janus, the Supreme Court held that public-sector unions cannot require non-members to pay fees to support union activities. The Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's January 2020 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 college professors David Seidemann and Bruce Martin. The defendants were the Professional Staff Congress Local 2334, the National Education Association, New York State United Teachers, the American Association of University Professors Collective Bargaining Congress, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and the American Federation of Teachers.
  • 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 judge:Judge Katherine Failla presided over the district court proceedings. A three-judge appellate panel included Second Circuit judges Debra Livingston, Michael Park, and Steven Menashi.
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were college professors David Seidemann and Bruce Martin. They were represented by counsel from Clark Hill, PLC. The defendants were the Professional Staff Congress Local 2334, the National Education Association, New York State United Teachers, the American Association of University Professors Collective Bargaining Congress, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and the American Federation of Teachers. The Professional Staff Congress Local 2334 was represented by counsel from the New York State United Teachers; Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.; Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP; and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][4][4]

    • October 24, 2018: Seidemann filed his initial complaint on October 24, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
    • April 12, 2019: Seidemann and Bruce Martin filed an amended complaint in the district court.
    • May 24, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint.
    • January 10, 2020: The district court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
    • February 5, 2020: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
    • January 11, 2021: A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.
    • June 10, 2021: The plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari 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 January 10, 2020, Judge Katherine Failla issued an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. Failla wrote the following in the court’s opinion:[4]

    “

    Plaintiffs argue Defendants could not have acted in good faith because they were “on notice” about Abood’s shaky foundations. (See Pl. Opp. 16). As a matter of Second Circuit precedent, this argument fails. See Jarvis, 660 F. App’x at 76 (finding defendants not liable for collection of agency shop fees “[b]ecause it was objectively reasonable for [defendant] ‘to act on the basis of a statute not yet held invalid’” (quoting Pinsky, 79 F.3d at 313)). Moreover, as other district courts have noted, Plaintiffs’ position would “imperil the rule of law,” see Cook, 364 F. Supp. 3d at 1193, since it would lead to individuals disregarding Supreme Court precedent based on their personal divinations of what the law might become at some future date. As every other district court that has considered the issue has found, Defendants were entitled to rely on what was indisputably the law of the land at the time.[7]

    		”

    Failla was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

    Appellate court decision

    On January 11, 2021, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—Chief Judge Debra Livingston and Circuit Judges Michael Park and Steven Menashi—affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. The court's order stated, "We have considered Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court."[5]

    Livingston was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush (R). Park and Menashi were 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 1.2 PacerMonitor, “Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress Local 2334 et al,” accessed August 12, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress Lo,” accessed August 12, 2020
    3. ↑ PacerMonitor, “Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress: Second Amended Complaint,” April 12, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 PacerMonitor, “Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress: Opinion and Order,” January 10, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 PacerMonitor, "Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress Lo - 0:20-cv-00460," January 11, 2021
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "20-1725," accessed October 4, 2021
    7. ↑ 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=Seidemann_v._Professional_Staff_Congress&oldid=9203472"