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

Wenzig v. SEIU Local 668

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wenzig v. SEIU Local 668
Case number: 20-1383
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: Aug. 7, 2019
District court decision:
Dec. 10, 2019
Appeals court decision:
Aug. 28, 2020
Supreme Court decision:
June 14, 2021
District court outcome
SEIU Local 668 is not liable to refund fair-share fees collected before Janus.
Appeals court outcome
District court ruling affirmed.
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.

Wenzig v. SEIU Local 668 was decided by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on August 28, 2020. In a 2-1 decision, the panel affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania's ruling in favor of the defendants. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, the plaintiffs sought refunds of fair-share fees charged to non-members by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 668. The Supreme Court denied review of the case on June 14, 2021.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Catherine Kioussis and Janine Wenzig. The defendant was Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 668.
  • The issue: Must unions refund non-union member fair-share fees that were collected before Janus v. AFSCME?
  • The presiding judges: A three-judge panel was convened to consider the case. The panel comprised Judges Peter Phipps, Marjorie Rendell, and D. Michael Fisher. Phipps was appointed to the court in 2019 by President Donald Trump (R). Rendell was appointed to the court in 1997 by President Bill Clinton (D). Fisher was appointed to the court in 2003 by President George W. Bush (R).
  • The outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania's ruling that SEIU Local 668 is not liable to refund fair-share fees collected before Janus. The Supreme Court denied review.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Catherine Kioussis and Janine Wenzig. They were represented by Liberty Justice Center, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, and Beckley & Madden. The defendant was Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 668. SEIU Local 668 was represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP and Willig, Williams & Davidson.

    The plaintiffs first filed their lawsuit on August 7, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs sought refunds for fair-share fees charged to non-union members prior to Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiffs asked the court to certify a class including all non-union members who were charged fair-share fees by SEIU, and sought refunds for all fair-share fees collected. Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4]

    • August 7, 2019: Catherine Kioussis filed a complaint against SEIU Local 668.
    • October 21, 2019: The defendants filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of their motion to dismiss.
    • October 28, 2019: The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Janine Wenzig was added to the suit as a plaintiff.
    • November 5, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that they acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection.
    • November 19, 2019: The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
    • December 10, 2019: The court ruled to dismiss the case, arguing that the defendants were entitled to a good faith defense.
    • December 13, 2019: The plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in consolidation with Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association.
    • August 28, 2020: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
    • September 11, 2020: The plaintiffs filed a joint petition for rehearing en banc.
    • October 30, 2020: Rehearing was denied.
    • March 29, 2021: The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • May 10, 2021: The defendants filed briefs in opposition to the petition for certiorari.
    • May 24, 2021: The plaintiffs filed a reply to the briefs in opposition.
    • June 14, 2021: The Supreme Court denied review of the case.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

    On December 10, 2019, Judge Malachy Mannion dismissed the suit in favor of the defendant. Mannion wrote the following in the court's opinion:[5]

    “

    The court concurs with the courts in Diamond and Hartnett, and holds that our plaintiffs’ claim for declarative judgment is moot based on Janus and, based on the undisputed fact that SEIU stopped collecting fair-share fees from state non-union member employees, including plaintiffs, following the Janus decision.

    Also, as in Diamond ... the court find that the voluntary-cessation exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply in this case since “[t]he circumstances of this case make it clear that the undisputedly wrongful behavior — the collection of fair-share fees — is not reasonably likely to recur [after Janus’s changing of the law and the reason that SEIU stopped collecting fair-share fees from public employees in Pennsylvania].” Indeed, “[c]omplying with a Supreme Court decision cannot be considered ‘voluntary cessation.’” ... As such, “compliance with an intervening Supreme Court decision does not implicate the voluntary-cessation exception to the mootness doctrine.” ... Thus, the court will grant SEIU’s motion and dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs’ request for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §2201.[6]

    		”

    Mannion was appointed to the court in 2012 by President Barack Obama (D).

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

    On August 28, 2020, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit voted 2-1 to affirm the lower court's dismissal. Judge Marjorie Rendell, a Bill Clinton (D) appointee, wrote the following in the court's opinion:[7]

    “ We are not the first court of appeals to rule on this question, and we join a growing consensus of our sister circuits who, in virtually identical cases, have held that because the unions collected the fair-share fees in good faith reliance on a governing state statute and Supreme Court precedent, they are entitled to a good faith defense ...

    As Judge Wood noted in Janus II, the good faith defense to section 1983 liability is “narrow” and “only rarely will a party successfully claim to have relied substantially and in good faith on both a state statute and unambiguous Supreme Court precedent validating that statute.” ... In this unique circumstance, the good faith defense applies here to protect the Unions from monetary liability under § 1983. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Courts’ judgments.[6]

    		”

    Judge D. Michael Fisher, a George W. Bush (R) appointee, concurred in Rendell's opinion. Judge Peter Phipps, a Donald Trump (R) appointee, dissented.

    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. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Kioussis v. Service Employees International Union Local 668," accessed June 1, 2021
    2. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Janine Wenzig, et al v. Service Employees Internationa," accessed June 1, 2021
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 20-1383," accessed June 1, 2021
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Order List: 593 U.S.," June 14, 2021
    5. ↑ U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, "Memorandum," December 10, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, "Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association: Order," August 28, 2020
    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=Wenzig_v._SEIU_Local_668&oldid=9203476"