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

Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors
Case number: 3:19-cv-00079
Status: Settled/Terminated
Important dates
Filed: January 14, 2019
District court decision: April 16, 2019
Appeals court decision
District court outcome
The parties reached a settlement agreement and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint.

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.

Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors was a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The parties reached a settlement agreement and the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of his complaint on April 16, 2019. The plaintiff 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 all fees collected, costs, and attorney’s fees. 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]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Steven Utke. The defendant was the University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors.
  • 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(s): Judge Robert Chatigny presided over the district court proceedings. Chatigny was appointed by President Bill Clinton (D).
  • The outcome: The parties reached a settlement agreement and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint.
  • Procedural history

    The plaintiff was Steven Utke. He was represented by counsel from the Law Offices of Martha A. Dean and the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation. The defendant was the University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors. They were represented by counsel from Ferguson, Doyle and Springer.[1] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3]

    • January 14, 2019: The plaintiff in Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors first filed the lawsuit on January 14, 2019, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff, who was not a union member, 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 all fees collected, costs, and attorney’s fees. He stated that the agency fee collection was unconstitutional under Janus and that an insufficient account was given to non-members regarding the use of agency fee funds by the union.
    • April 8, 2019: A joint status report was entered into the docket by the plaintiff.
    • April 11, 2019: A judicial order of dismissal was handed down pending the settlement agreement.
    • April 16, 2019: The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    A settlement was reached between the parties. The union issued a refund of $5,251.48 in union fees paid by Utke and agreed not to deduct additional fees unless Utke gave affirmative consent to join the union. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint on November 16, 2019.[1][4]

    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.[5]

    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.[5]

    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."[5]

    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.

    See also

    External links

    Case documents

    Trial court

    Footnotes