Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503
Case number: 3:19-cv-01181
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: July 30, 2019
District court decision: December 6, 2019
Appeals court decision: December 30, 2019
District court outcome
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims.
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.

Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503 was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on December 30, 2019. The appellate court upheld the district court’s decision. On December 6, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon decided the case, dismissing the plaintiff's complaints. In light of the ruling in Janus v. AFSCME The plaintiff filed the initial complaint on July 30, 2019, challenging the union’s opt-out window and continued deduction of dues despite the plaintiff's wishes to opt out of union membership.[1][2][3][4]


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Colleen Stroeder. The defendants were Service Employees International Union, Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union.
  • The issue: In light of the ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiff elected to withdraw from union membership but missed the union’s designated opt-out window and the union continued to withdraw dues. Plaintiff is challenging the union’s opt-out window and continued dues deduction.
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Marco Hernandez. He joined the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in 2011 after a nomination from President Barack Obama.
  • The outcome: The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. The appellate court upheld the district court’s decision.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Colleen Stroeder. They were represented by attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center and Nathan R. Rietmann, Attorneys At Law. The defendants were Service Employees International Union, Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union. They were represented by attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP and Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost.[1][2]

    The plaintiff in Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503 first filed their lawsuit on July 30, 2019, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiff decided to withdraw from union membership but missed the union’s annual opt-out window, and thusly the union continued to withdraw dues from plaintiff’s paycheck. The plaintiff challenged the union’s opt-out window and continued deduction of dues.[1][2][3][4]

    • July 30, 2019: Plaintiff file original complaints seeking damages.
    • August 2, 2019: Plaintiff files motion for preliminary injunction.
    • September 9, 2019: Plaintiff withdraws motion for a preliminary injunction.
    • October 16, 2019: Several defendants file motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    • December 6, 2019: Court grants state defendants’ motion to dismiss.
    • December 30, 2019: Appellate court upholds district court’s decision.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    On December 6, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiff's complaints, upholding the union’s opt-out period. On December 30, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.[1][4]


    On December 6, 2019, Judge Marco Hernandez dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. Judge Hernandez wrote the following in the court's opinion:=

    “ The Court cannot find a reasonable expectation that Plaintiff will be subjected to the

    challenged action again. Plaintiff is not seeking to recover damages from State Defendants. Plaintiff is no longer a union member, her dues authorization is no longer in effect, and dues are no longer being deducted from her paychecks. In fact, Plaintiff would “have to rejoin [her] union for [her] claim to be live,” and, “given [her] representations in this lawsuit, [this] seems a remote possibility.” Babb v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n., 378 F. Supp. 3d 857, 886 (C.D. Cal. 2019); see also Smith v. Bieker, 18-cv-05472-VC, 2019 WL 2476679, *1 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2019) (finding similar claims moot). Plaintiff has identified no facts to suggest otherwise. Thus, the claim against State Defendants must be dismissed as moot. [5]

    		”
    —Judge Marco Hernandez

    Judge Hernandez joined the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in 2011 after a nomination from President Barack Obama.

    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 1.3 Pacer Monitor, "Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union," accessed September 21, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Pacer Monitor, "Colleen Stroeder v. Service Employees Internationa, et al," accessed September 21, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 My Pay, My Say, Maine, "News," accessed September 21, 2020
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Pacer Monitor, "OPINION AND ORDER," accessed September 21, 2020
    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=Stroeder_v._Service_Employees_International_Union,_Local_503&oldid=9203555"