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

Smith v. New Jersey Education Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Smith v. New Jersey Education Association
Case number: 0:19-cv-03995
Status: Pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Important dates
Filed: June 11, 2018
District court decision: November 27, 2019
Appeals court decision: Pending
District court outcome
The district court ruled that public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid prior to Janus v. AFSCME and that they cannot 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.
Appeals court outcome
Pending

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.

Smith v. New Jersey Education Association is a class-action lawsuit pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It was previously dismissed from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on November 27, 2019. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint following Janus v. AFSCME that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and fee collection, as well as requests for a refund of union dues and agency or “representation” fees, costs, and attorney’s fees. Additionally, the claim challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status. 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]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs are Anne Smith, Leonardo Santiago, Michael Sandberg, Karl Hedenberg, Melissa Poulson, and Rachel Curcio. The lead defendant is the New Jersey Education Association.
  • The issue: 1) 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? 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 judge(s): Judge Renee Bumb presided over the district court proceedings. Bumb was appointed by President George W. Bush (R).
  • The outcome: The case is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs are Anne Smith, Leonardo Santiago, Michael Sandberg, Karl Hedenberg, Melissa Poulson, and Rachel Curcio. They are represented by Jonathan F. Mitchell and Walter S. Zimolong III. The lead defendant is the New Jersey Education Association. The union is represented by counsel from Bredhoff & Kaiser and Zazzali Fagella Nowak Kleinbaum & Friedman. Several other parties have been involved in the lawsuit throughout the proceedings. For a complete current list of plaintiffs and defendants, click here.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4]

    • June 11, 2018: The plaintiffs in Smith v. New Jersey Education Association first filed their lawsuit on June 11, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint following Janus v. AFSCME that included challenges to the constitutionality of union membership requirements and fee collection, as well as requests for a refund of union dues and agency or “representation” fees, costs, and attorney’s fees. Additionally, the claim challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements, made prior to Janus v. AFSCME, allowing continued fee deductions throughout a given time, regardless of membership status.
    • September 28, 2018: Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss
    • December 7, 2018: A hearing was held at which the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction was denied.
    • November 27, 2019: The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim, ruling in favor of the defendants.
    • December 31, 2019: An appeal was docketed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On November 27, 2019, Judge Renee Bumb issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim in favor of the defendants.[4] Judge Bumb wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    Although the Member Plaintiffs acknowledge that they signed Union Dues Authorization Forms at the commencement of their employment, Plaintiffs claim that these authorizations are invalid because they were obtained before Janus clarified their rights to abstain from paying any dues to the union. Unlike Mr. Janus, who was an agency fee paying non-member who never agreed to any dues deduction, the Member Plaintiffs all voluntarily agreed to union membership, with full deduction of dues. However, Plaintiffs argue that the Union Authorization Dues Forms must now be considered involuntary, because Plaintiffs could not have freely and knowingly waived a right that they did not know they had (the right to avoid paying union fees as a non-member, as Janus now holds). This argument fails as a matter of law, because “changes in intervening law – even constitutional law – do not invalidate a contract.” Smith v. Bieker, 2019 WL 2476679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2019)(citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 757 (1970)); see also Oliver v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 668, 2019 WL 5964778, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2019)(a “subsequent change in the law does not permit a party to a contract who has enjoyed the benefit of the bargain to rescind it with the benefit of hindsight”) (citing Coltec Industries, Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 274-75 (3d Cir. 2002)). …

    In light of Janus, the Non-Member Plaintiffs argue that they should be reimbursed for agency fees that were deducted from their pay for years, without their affirmative consent, to subsidize the unions in violation of the First Amendment. While Plaintiffs’ arguments are well-taken, this Court finds that the Union Defendants would prevail based upon their good-faith belief that these agency fee deductions, which were sanctioned by the Supreme Court in Abood, complied with statutory and constitutional law. [5]

    		”
    —Judge Bumb

    Appellate court decision

    A decision is pending in Smith v. New Jersey Education Association.[2]

    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.[6]

    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.[6]

    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."[6]

    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

    Trial court

    Footnotes
    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, “SMITH v. NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al,” accessed August 13, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 PacerMonitor, “Ann Smith, et al v. New Jersey Education Associati, et al,” accessed August 13, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, "Smith v. New Jersey Education Association: Plaintiff’s Class-Action Complaint," June 11, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, "Smith v. New Jersey Education Association: Opinion," November 27, 2019
    5. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 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=Smith_v._New_Jersey_Education_Association&oldid=9203461"