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

Thulen v. AFSCME

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Thulen v. AFSCME
Case number: 0:20-cv-01186
Status: Pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Important dates
Filed: October 3, 2018
District court decision: December 27, 2019
Appeals court decision: Pending
District court outcome
The district court dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for relief.
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.

Thulen v. AFSCME is a lawsuit pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It was previously dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The court issued an order in favor of the defendants, ruling the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for relief. The plaintiffs initially filed a claim that 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. The plaintiffs requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, a declaration that union members may withdraw from the union at any time, costs, and attorney’s fees.[1][2][3][4]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs are Michael Thulen Jr., Michael Porter, and Terence Gaudlip. The lead defendant is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees New Jersey Council 63.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, are pre-existing public-sector union dues agreements allowing membership withdrawal only at certain approved times enforceable and constitutional?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Renee Bumb presided over the district court proceedings. Bumb was appointed by President George W. Bush (R).
  • The outcome: This case is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs are Michael Thulen Jr., Michael Porter, and Terence Gaudlip. They are represented by counsel from the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation and King Moench Hirniak and Mehta, LLP. The lead defendant is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees New Jersey Council 63. The union is represented by counsel from Bredhoff & Kaiser and Zazzali, Fagelli, Nowak, Kleinbaum, and Friedman, PC. For a complete list of plaintiffs and defendants in this lawsuit, click here.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4]

    • October 3, 2018: The plaintiffs in Thulen et al v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, New Jersey Council 63 et alE first filed their lawsuit on October 3, 2018, in the United States District Court of New Jersey. The plaintiffs initially filed a claim that 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. The plaintiffs requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, a declaration that union members may withdraw from the union at any time, costs, and attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs argue that the First Amendment gives member employees a right to withdraw from the union at any time without restriction. On that, the plaintiffs argue that the revocation requirement, which limits membership withdrawal to a set window of time, included in the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act of New Jersey is unconstitutional.
    • December 27, 2019: The district court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim.
    • January 31, 2020: 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

    On December 27, 2019, Judge Renee Bumb dismissed the case in favor of the defendants.[4] Judge Bumb wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    As held by this Court in Smith, et al. v. NJEA, et al., Civ. No. 18-10381 [Dkt. No. 197] and Fischer, et al. v. Murphy, et al., Civ. No. 18-15628 [Dkt. No. 50], 2019 WL 6337991, the Janus decision does not allow employees, who voluntarily signed union dues authorizations, to override fair and reasonable contractual commitments. In this case, Plaintiffs do not allege what, if any, opt-out restrictions were set forth in their union dues authorization forms. As such, this Court cannot determine if the terms of the union dues authorization agreement were reasonable. [5]

    		”
    —Judge Bumb

    Judge Bumb was appointed by President George W. Bush (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.[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

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, “THULEN et al., v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, NEW JERSEY COUNCIL 63 et al.," accessed August 15, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Michael Thulen, Jr., et al v. American Federation of State C, et al," accessed August 15, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, “Thulen v. AFSCME: Complaint," October 3, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 PacerMonitor, “Thulen v. AFSCME: Opinion," December 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=Thulen_v._AFSCME&oldid=9203553"