Akers v. Maryland State Education Association

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 03:17, 29 August 2023 by Janie Valentine (contribs) (Text replacement - "Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-present" to "Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Akers v. Maryland State Education Association
Case number: 19-1524
Status: Closed
Important dates
Filed: June 18, 2018
District court decision:
April 18, 2019
Appeals court decision:
March 8, 2021
District court outcome
The court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the request for declaration of the constitutional right to decline union membership and dues payment was moot due to Janus v. AFSCME and that repayment of union fees was not required as the defendants acted in good faith. All other claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Appeals court outcome
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.

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.

Akers v. Maryland State Education Association was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on March 8, 2021. The Fourth Circuit upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland's April 2019 dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs' initial complaint challenged the constitutionality of union membership requirements and dues collection, as well as the acquisition of personal information, and requested damages in the amount of all agency fees deducted by the union as well as costs and attorney’s fees. In the opening brief of the appeal, the plaintiffs stated a challenge to the defendants’ good-faith argument against returning previously collected union fees and requested the district court ruling be overturned.[1][2][3][4][5][6]


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Ruth Akers and Sharon Moesel. The defendants were the Maryland State Education Association, the Teachers Association of Baltimore County, the National Education Association, Baltimore County Public Schools, the governor and attorney general of Maryland in their official capacities, members of the Maryland Public School Labor Relations Board in their official capacities, and the Teachers Association of Anne Arundel County, Inc.
  • 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 were unconstitutional?
  • The presiding judges: Judge Richard Bennett presided over the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. A three-judge panel—U.S. Circuit Judges Robert King, Henry Floyd, and Stephanie Thacker—presided over the case in the Fourth Circuit.
  • The outcome: The Fourth Circuit panel upheld the district court's dismissal of the case.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Ruth Akers and Sharon Moesel. Attorneys from Talcott Franklin PC, Machin Law Firm, LLC, and Mitchell Law PLLC represented the plaintiffs. The defendants were the Maryland State Education Association, the Teachers Association of Baltimore County, the National Education Association, Baltimore County Public Schools, the governor and attorney general of Maryland in their official capacities, members of the Maryland Public School Labor Relations Board in their official capacities, and the Teachers Association of Anne Arundel County, Inc. Attorneys from the Maryland attorney general's office, the National Education Association, the Maryland State Teacher's Association, the Georgetown Law Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic, and Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC represented the defendants.[1][3]

    Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][6]

    • June 18, 2018: Akers filed an initial complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
    • August 16-20 2018: The defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims based on failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction.
    • September 7, 2018: Akers filed an amended complaint, with Moesel added as a plaintiff.
    • October 18, 2018: The defendants filed motions to dismiss based on failure to state a claim.
    • November 22-23, 2018: The plaintiffs filed responses to the defendants' motions to dismiss.
    • March 11, 2019: The court issued an order denying all previous motions to dismiss as moot.
    • March 18-April 11, 2019: The defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction of supplemental authority.
    • April 18, 2019: U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett issued a memorandum opinion granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 19, 2019, Bennett issued an amended order.
    • May 14, 2019: The plaintiffs appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal was docketed on May 16.
    • July 15, 2019: The plaintiffs filed an opening brief.
    • July 19, 2019: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
    • July 29, 2019: The plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal.
    • September 16, 2019: The court placed the case in abeyance pending a decision in Affinity Living Group, LLC v. Starstone Specialty Insurance Co. (18-2376).
    • March 8, 2021: The Fourth Circuit panel affirmed the district court's ruling.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    District court decision

    On April 18, 2019, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett issued an opinion in favor of the defendants, granting their motion for dismissal. The plaintiffs’ declaratory and injunctive claims were dismissed as moot, their claim for refund of fees was dismissed with prejudice, and all remaining amended claims were dismissed without prejudice. Bennett wrote the following in the court's opinion:[4]

    “

    Shortly after the filing of this action, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Janus v. Am. ... holding that '[s]tates and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees.' ... Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are now moot. Furthermore, consistent with many other courts, this Court holds that collection of fees in good-faith reliance on then-valid law bars the Plaintiffs' refund claims. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, both Motions to Dismiss ... are GRANTED.

    ...

    Further, the remaining claims shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: the challenge to exclusive representation is foreclosed by United States Supreme Court precedent; Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead that their constitutional right of association and freedom of speech have been implicated by the disclosure of their contact information to the union under HB 811; Ms. Moesel fails to allege a plausible antitrust claim; and with the dismissal of the federal claims, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.[7]

    		”

    President George W. Bush (R) appointed Bennett to the court.

    Appeals court decision

    On March 8, 2021, a three-judge panel—U.S. Circuit Judges Robert King, Henry Floyd, and Stephanie Thacker—upheld Bennett's dismissal of the case. King wrote:[6]

    “

    In sum, consistent with the weight of authority from our sister circuits, we affirm the district court and rule that the union defendants are entitled to utilize the good-faith defense with respect to the plaintiffs' Janus claim. As a result, the defendants are not required to refund the representation fees that the plaintiffs paid to the union defendants prior to the Janus decision.[7]

    		”

    President Bill Clinton (D) appointed King to the court, and President Barack Obama (D) appointed Floyd and Thacker.

    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

    Appeals court

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, "Akers v. Maryland State Education Association et al," accessed April 22, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 PacerMonitor, "Ruth Akers v. Maryland State Education Assoc," accessed April 22, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 PacerMonitor, "Akers v. Maryland State Education Association: Complaint," June 18, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 PacerMonitor, “Akers v. Maryland State Education Association: Memorandum Opinion,” April 18, 2019
    5. ↑ PacerMonitor, "Ruth Akers v. Maryland State Education Assoc: Opening Brief for Appeal," July 15, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 PacerMonitor, "No. 19-1524," March 8, 2021
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    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=Akers_v._Maryland_State_Education_Association&oldid=9203527"