Hannay v. Kent State: Difference between revisions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-present" to "Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023")
 
Line 48: Line 48:


==See also==
==See also==
* [[Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-present]]  
* [[Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023]]  
* ''[[Janus v. AFSCME]]''
* ''[[Janus v. AFSCME]]''
* ''[[Abood v. Detroit Board of Education]]''
* ''[[Abood v. Detroit Board of Education]]''

Latest revision as of 03:16, 29 August 2023

Hannay v. Kent State
Case number: 5:19-cv-00951
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: April 29, 2019
District court decision: September 27, 2019
Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after their resignations from the union were recognized.

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.

Hannay v. Kent State was dismissed voluntarily from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on September 27, 2019. The plaintiffs challenged AFSCME’s policy of restricting union membership resignation to 15-day opt-out windows, arguing that union dues authorizations signed before Janus v. AFSCME were unenforceable.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Adda Gape, Annamarie Hannay, and John Kohl. The defendants were Catherine L. Ross, F. Jack Witt III, Donald L. Mason, Margot James Copeland, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Ohio Council 8, Robin M. Kilbride, Shawn M. Riley, Virginia C. Addicott, Ralph M. Della Ratta, Todd C. Davidson, Stephen A. Perry, Kent State University Employees Local 153, Michael D. Solomon and Robert S. Frost.
  • The issue: Can unions enforce authorizations signed before Janus v. AFSCME, including authorizations that restrict union resignation to 15-day opt-out windows?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge John R. Adams was assigned to the case. Adams was appointed to the court in 2003 by President George W. Bush (R).
  • The outcome: The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after their resignations from the union were recognized.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Adda Gape, Annamarie Hannay, and John Kohl. They were represented by The Buckeye Institute and Liberty Justice Center. The defendants were Catherine L. Ross, F. Jack Witt III, Donald L. Mason, Margot James Copeland, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Ohio Council 8, Robin M. Kilbride, Shawn M. Riley, Virginia C. Addicott, Ralph M. Della Ratta, Todd C. Davidson, Stephen A. Perry, Kent State University Employees Local 153, Michael D. Solomon and Robert S. Frost. They were represented by Kastner, Westman & Wilkins, and Bredhoff & Kaiser. The plaintiffs in Hannay v. Kent State first filed their lawsuit on April 29, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs alleged that the unions prevented membership resignation outside of yearly 15-day opt-out windows and that the unions continued to withhold dues from the employees’ paychecks based on checkoff authorizations signed prior to Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiffs argued that these authorizations did not meet the standard for affirmative consent required by Janus, and argued that this violated their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs sought refunds for all union dues deducted without their consent.[1]

    • April 29, 2019: Plaintiffs Adda Gape, Annamarie Hannay, and John Kohl filed their lawsuit against all defendants.
    • August 20, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction.
    • September 24, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case voluntarily after the union agreed to recognize the plaintiffs’ membership resignation.
    • September 27, 2019: The court dismissed the suit.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.


    Decision

    On September 27, 2019, Judge John R. Adams dismissed the case after the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case voluntarily. The matter was settled out of court when the union recognized the employees’ resignation attempts; in exchange, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the case.[2] John R. Adams was appointed to the court in 2003 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.[3]

    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.[3]

    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."[3]

    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 Liberty Justice Center, “Complaint,” accessed April 19, 2020
    2. ↑ Liberty Justice Center, “Hannay v. Kent State,” April 19, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 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=Hannay_v._Kent_State&oldid=9203433"