UConn Professor Receives Over $5,000 in Post-Janus Settlement
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed rule clarification takes aim at SEIU’s illicit $100 million per year money grab
Rather than face Foundation staff attorneys in court, union bosses refunded the forced dues seized from UConn professor Steven Utke in violation of his First Amendment rights.
STORRS, CT – Steven Utke, an accounting professor at the University of Connecticut, has received a settlement for $5,251.48 from American Association of University Professors (AAUP) union officials in his action, claiming the AAUP seized union dues in violation of his First Amendment rights. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys forced AAUP to settle after filing a federal lawsuit for Utke.
The case joins other Foundation-won settlements for workers who were forced to pay union fees in violation of their First Amendment rights. Despite those victories, Foundation staff attorneys continue to litigate about 30 other cases, seeking to enforce various aspects of the Foundation’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court victory, with more being added every month as workers contact the Foundation seeking to exercise their Janus rights.
Utke started teaching at the University of Connecticut in 2015, and exercised his right to refrain from membership in the AAUP from the beginning of his employment. However, because Connecticut lacks a Right to Work law making union financial support strictly voluntary, AAUP officials began deducting union fees immediately from Utke’s paycheck despite the fact he was not a member.
When the Supreme Court ruled in Janus that requiring public sector workers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of employment is a breach of the First Amendment, AAUP stopped the compulsory fee deductions. However, AAUP officials did not return the forced fees seized in violation of the First Amendment from the professor prior to the June 2018 Supreme Court decision.
Utke reached out to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid, and on January 14, 2019 Foundation staff attorneys filed a lawsuit for Utke in federal court to force the union officials to refund the money they seized from him without his consent.
In April, rather than face Foundation staff attorneys in federal court, AAUP backed down and settled the case. Now, as stipulated by the terms of the settlement, AAUP officials have paid Utke more than the union fees seized in violation of his rights from 2015 to 2018.
Also as part of the settlement, they are required not to collect any dues or fees from Utke’s future wages, unless he affirmatively chooses to become a member of AAUP and authorizes such deductions.
“Steven Utke’s victory represents yet another landmark in the fight to enforce the Janus decision, but with dozens of additional Janus enforcement cases still pending, much work remains to force Big Labor to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse. “Foundation staff attorneys will not rest until every worker in America is free to exercise the right to decide whether or not to fund union activities.”
Airline Workers Contest Union ‘Opt-Out’ Requirement for Political Dues
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2019 edition. To view other editions or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union bosses bullied and illegally threatened to discipline employee who defied strike demands
United Airlines fleet service employee Arthur Baisley (left) and JetBlue pilot Christian Popp (right) are challenging union boss “opt-out” rules that make nonmembers pay for union political spending without their consent.
AUSTIN, TX – United Airlines fleet service employee Arthur Baisley and JetBlue Airlines pilot Christian Popp have filed federal lawsuits against the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) unions, respectively, challenging union officials’ “opt-out” requirements designed to make non-members pay for union political activities without their consent.
Austin, TX-based Baisley and Fort Lauderdale, FL-based Popp filed their lawsuits with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation. Their Foundation staff attorneys argue that the “opt-out” schemes perpetrated by IAM and ALPA bosses violate workers’ rights under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and the First Amendment under the standard laid out in the landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision Janus v. AFSCME.
“No employee or private citizen should be trapped in a deliberately-complex system that funnels their money into political speech of which they disapprove. Unfortunately, that is exactly what IAM and ALPA union officials are doing to non-member workers across America,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director Ray LaJeunesse.
The lawsuits contend that under Janus and the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme Court case – both of which were argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys – no union dues or fees can be charged for union political activities without a worker’s affirmative consent.
Popp and Baisley, despite working in the Right to Work states of Florida and Texas, must still pay fees to their respective unions as the RLA preempts state law and permits forced dues. But, even in the absence of Right to Work protections, established Supreme Court precedent forbids unions from putting those compulsory fees towards ideological activities like lobbying or politics.
According to the lawsuits, the processes that IAM and ALPA union bosses require independent-minded workers to go through simply to exercise their constitutional right not to fund “nonchargable” activities are convoluted and typically involve having to “decipher” the opt-out requirements of the union.
Even worse, after Baisley submitted a letter to IAM agents in November 2018 objecting to funding all union political activities, the union officials only accepted his objection for 2019, and told Baisley he would be required to renew his objection to full dues and fees the next year or else be charged for full union dues.
The two complaints challenge these union boss-created policies on the grounds that they “require employees to opt-out of paying union fees that they have no legal obligation to pay” and thus violate workers’ First Amendment rights.
The complaints also allege that the “opt-out” requirements violate the RLA, which governs labor in the air and rail industries and “protects the right of employees to ‘join, organize, or assist in organizing’ a union of their choice as well as the right to refrain from any of those activities.”
Both suits are class-action, and seek court orders requiring union officials to ask for affirmative employee consent for any dues charged for political or ideological purposes in the future.
“These lawsuits show that although Janus’ most direct impact was to secure the First Amendment rights of public employees not to be required to fund Big Labor, the implications don’t stop there,” observed LaJeunesse. “Because the Janus decision made clear workers must opt-in to all political and ideological activity, Foundation staff attorneys are able to cite it in defense of airline workers covered by the Railway Labor Act.”
Wall Street Journal Highlights Foundation Litigation to Enforce Janus v. AFSCME
In June 2018, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys won the landmark Janus v. AFSMCE case at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Janus decision established that the First Amendment protects public-sector workers from being forced to pay dues or fees to a union against their wishes.
Union bosses have widely blocked public employees from exercising their Janus rights using a variety of coercive tactics, requiring Foundation staff attorneys to pursue dozens of follow-up cases to enforce Janus.
Recently The Wall Street Journal published an article highlighting this ongoing litigation and heavily cited veteran Foundation staff attorney Bill Messenger:
The opt-out window is a favorite post-Janus union tactic for retaining members. More than 40 lawsuits against these “escape period” requirements are pending across the country, according to Bill Messenger, an attorney with the National Right to Work Foundation who argued Mark Janus’s case at the Supreme Court. …
Mr. Messenger and lawyers at LJC argue that these opt-out window requirements flout the Janus ruling, which clarified that a worker must give affirmative consent to become a union member. Before Janus, they argue, workers couldn’t give free, knowledgeable consent because they faced an unconstitutional choice between being a member or an agency-fee payer. Unions are violating the free-speech rights of members like Ms. Callaghan, who joined before Janus, by forcing them to wait for opt-out windows to leave. …
More than 80 lawsuits are challenging union efforts to hang on to unwilling members. Often handled by nonprofits like the LJC and NRTW Foundation, these suits fall into four main camps: challenging opt-out window restrictions, seeking compensation for pre-Janus agency fees paid by nonmembers, fighting exclusive union representation, and extending Janus to the private sector. These cases aren’t litigating the merits of unions; they’re seeking to codify workers’ freedom to choose whether they want to be in one.
Read the complete column from The Wall Street Journal here.
California Teacher Union Bosses Back Down, Settle Lawsuit Filed by Community College Professor for First Amendment Janus Violations
Union officials to issue refunds, drop policy blocking professors from exercising First Amendment right to stop subsidizing union activities
Los Angeles, CA (July 24, 2019) – A math professor from the Ventura County Community College District (VCCCD) has just finalized a settlement with American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union officials in his class-action lawsuit to enforce the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. The lawsuit was filed for the professor in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The victory will result in refunds of dues seized from the professor and others who attempted to exercise their right to stop union payments under the Janus decision. Additionally, the settlement forces AFT union officials to drop their policy used to block the educators from exercising their Janus rights except for a brief union-determined annual escape period.
Professor Michael McCain had been paying union dues as a member of AFT since 2005, but attempted to exercise his First Amendment right to resign his membership and cut off dues in August 2018 shortly after the Janus ruling came down. Janus, which was argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys in the U.S. Supreme Court last year, struck down compulsory union fees for all public sector employees, and instead held that affirmative employee consent is required to obtain union fees from any worker.
According to the lawsuit, the AFT and VCCCD did not honor McCain’s resignation and continued to deduct dues from his paycheck, enforcing a strict “window period” policy which severely limits the time period in which a member can resign. The lawsuit also noted that McCain’s individual dues authorization card made no mention of this rule.
McCain’s attorneys argued that the AFT’s restrictive policy constituted a “violation of [his] First Amendment right not to subsidize union activity without [his] affirmative consent and known waiver of that…right, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME.” It requested refunds for him and other similarly situated teachers in the VCCCD of “dues deducted…without their affirmative and knowing consent.”
Rather than face Foundation attorneys and the Janus precedent in court, VCCCD and AFT officials settled the case. The union will now “fully and unconditionally” refund to McCain and other teachers who requested to stop paying union dues since Janus was decided all the dues illegally taken since the dates of their requests, plus interest. AFT and VCCCD also promised not to “adopt any policy that restricts to a yearly window period the time” when an employee can revoke his or her dues authorization.
“Michael McCain joins the ranks of educators and other government employees across the country who have successfully fought for and defended their First Amendment rights under Janus from union boss schemes like annual ‘escape periods,’ which serve no purpose other than to continue the flow of illegal dues into union coffers,” said National Right to Work President Mark Mix. “All American workers deserve the freedom that Janus promises, and Foundation attorneys will keep fighting for them in the dozens of cases already filed and many more if necessary.”
Ventura County Professor Files Class Action Lawsuit Challenging Union “Window Period” Scheme to Unlawfully Seize Dues
Union officials violate hundreds of public workers’ constitutional rights under the Supreme Court’s Janus decision by deducting unauthorized forced dues
Los Angeles, CA (January 15, 2019) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, a math professor from Ventura Country, California, is challenging an illegal “window period” scheme to forcibly seize union membership dues from his paycheck without his consent and in violation of his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff Michael McCain filed a class action lawsuit on Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the American Federation of Teachers (AFT); Ventura County Federation of College Teachers, AFT Local 1828, AFL-CIO; and Ventura County Community College School District.
A public employee who works for the Ventura County Community College School District, plaintiff Michael McCain attempted to exercise his First Amendment rights by resigning his union membership following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME, a case Foundation attorneys argued and won.
The High Court ruled on June 27, 2018, that union bosses may not forcibly seize dues from public sector workers. Instead, government employees must knowingly waive their First Amendment right not to subsidize a union and affirmatively authorize deductions before union officials can collect membership dues or fees.
However, AFT union officials never informed McCain of his First Amendment rights, making it impossible for him to have waived them. Union officials continue seizing membership dues from McCain’s hard-earned wages, even after McCain resigned his union membership and made it clear in a letter sent to the union just weeks after the Janus decision that he does not consent to dues deductions. Union officials claim that McCain can only cut off dues deductions during a union-created 15-day “window period” each year.
McCain’s class action lawsuit asks the court to strike down this unlawful “window period” scheme and order union officials to stop deducting unauthorized dues. His complaint also seeks a refund of membership dues that were wrongfully taken from him and hundreds, if not thousands, of other public employees.
“Union officials have a long history of manipulating ‘window period’ schemes, arbitrary union-enacted limitations trapping workers into forced dues, and other obstacles designed to block individuals from exercising their constitutional rights,” said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Despite what union bosses say, First Amendments rights cannot be limited to just 15 days out of the year.”
“The Supreme Court affirmed the rights of public workers in the Foundation’s victory in Janus, but Michael’s case shows union bosses are determined to defy the High Court and continue their abusive practices,” Mix added.
Illinois State Employee Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear First Amendment Challenge to Mandatory Union Fees
Janus v. AFSCME could free all government workers in the U.S. from being forced to pay union fees as a condition of employment
Washington, D.C. (June 6, 2017) – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to hear a case that could free government workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.
Forcing government employees to pay money to union officials to keep their jobs violates the First Amendment, argues plaintiff Mark Janus in the case Janus v. AFSCME. Janus is a child support specialist from Illinois, whose lawsuit was brought by attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center.
The request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case follows a March ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which upheld forced dues and fees based on the Supreme Court’s 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision. The plaintiffs in Janus v. AFSCME argue that Abood was wrongly decided and should be overturned, especially in light of subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have applied strict scrutiny to mandatory union fees. A copy of the petition is available here.
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement about the case:
“For too long, millions of workers across the nation have been forced to pay dues and fees into union coffers as a condition of working for their own government. Requiring public servants to subsidize union officials’ speech is incompatible with the First Amendment. This petition asks the Supreme Court to take up this case and revisit a nearly half-century-old mistake that led to an anomaly in First Amendment jurisprudence. By applying the principles the Court laid out in two recent cases brought for workers by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys – Knox and Harris – the Court can end the injustice of public sector forced dues by the end of next term.”
Jacob Huebert, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, described what is at stake in the Janus case:
“People shouldn’t be forced to surrender their First Amendment right to decide for themselves what organizations they will and won’t support just because they decide to work for the state, their local government or a public school. This case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to restore to millions of American workers the right to choose whether to support a union with their money.”
Mark Janus works for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and is forced to send part of his paycheck to AFSCME. He said, explaining why he brought the case:
“I went into this line of work because I care about kids. But just because I care about kids doesn’t mean I also want to support a government union. Unfortunately, I have no choice. To keep my job at the state, I have to pay monthly fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public employee union that claims to ‘represent’ me. I’m filing this case on behalf of all government employees who want to serve their community or their state without having to pay a union first.”
In addition to Janus v. AFSCME, six other ongoing cases brought by workers with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation are challenging public sector forced dues. These cases represent the full spectrum of public employees, including teachers in Pennsylvania, school aides in Kentucky, university professors in Massachusetts, medical center technicians in California, school electricians in New York and state troopers in Connecticut.
Janus’ case is the first of that group to reach the Supreme Court. The case is on track for the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear it at its first conference of the term beginning in the fall. If four justices agree, the Supreme Court could announce soon after its September 25 conference that it will hear the case.
Background: Janus v. AFSCME’s journey to the Supreme Court
The case now called Janus v. AFSCME began on February 9, 2015. Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner issued an executive order prohibiting state agencies from requiring nonmember state employees to pay union fees, and directed that instead any such fees deducted be put in escrow pending the resolution of litigation.
On the same day, Rauner filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the collection of forced fees from state employees, asking for a declaratory judgment that the forced fee provisions violate the First Amendment and that his executive order was valid.
On March 23, 2015, staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center filed a motion for Mark Janus to intervene in the case. Janus’s complaint requested not only a declaratory judgment but also an injunction and damages from the unions for the compelled fees.
Although the court then ruled that Rauner did not have standing necessary to pursue his lawsuit, the challenge continued because the judge granted Janus’ motion to intervene. The case was renamed Janus v. AFSCME. On July 2, 2015, the Illinois Attorney General asked the district court to stay the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in a case with similar constitutional issues at stake, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The district court granted a stay on July 8, 2015.
According to most legal observers, the Supreme Court appeared ready to rule for the teacher plaintiffs in Friedrichs and declare that forced union fees for public sector workers violate the First Amendment. However, after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016, the court ultimately deadlocked 4-4 on Friedrichs. Soon after, a district court judge dismissed Janus, allowing the case to be appealed to the 7th Circuit.
The appeal was filed in October 2016, and oral argument was held on March 1, 2017. On March 21, the 7th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, ruling that the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education precedent applied to Janus v. AFSCME. That expected decision by the 7th Circuit allowed Janus’ attorneys to file a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Recent Supreme Court victories set stage for Janus case
Janus follows a series of decisions that demonstrate a willingness by the Supreme Court to reconsider the constitutionality of forced union fees. In 1977, in Abood, the High Court had held that although union officials could not constitutionally spend objectors’ funds for some political and ideological activities, unions could require fees to subsidize collective bargaining and contract administration with government employers.
In the 2012 Knox v. SEIU case, brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, the Supreme Court began to question Abood’s underpinnings. The Court there held that union officials must obtain affirmative consent from workers before using workers’ forced union fees for special assessments or dues increases that include union politicking.
In the opinion Justice Samuel Alito authored, the door was left open to challenge all forced union fees as a violation of the First Amendment. Alito wrote, “By allowing unions to collect any fees from nonmembers and by permitting unions to use opt-out rather than opt-in schemes when annual dues are billed, our cases have substantially impinged upon the First Amendment rights of nonmembers.” Additionally he said, “Unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember-employees.”
Two years later, the Foundation assisted a group of Illinois home care providers, including Pam Harris, a mother taking care of her disabled son, in challenging a state scheme authorizing Service Employees International Union officials to require the providers to pay union dues or fees. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys took the case to the Supreme Court, which held that the forced dues requirement violated the First Amendment. The Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief in support of Pam Harris and the other plaintiffs with the Supreme Court.
In its Harris ruling, the Court heavily criticized the reasoning of Abood and refused to extend Abood to the “new situation” before it, “[b]ecause of Abood’s questionable foundations, and because the personal assistants are quite different from full-fledged public employees.” The decision held Illinois’ scheme unconstitutional and cracked the door even further open for the Court to revisit Abood and the constitutionality of forced union fees. Justice Alito wrote for the Court, “Except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”
Last year, it appeared that the Supreme Court was ready to strike down forced union fees for public sector workers for good in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case. The case was brought by Rebecca Friedrichs and eight other teachers who argued that Abood should be overturned because the forced collection of union fees is a violation of the First Amendment. In that case, attorneys for the Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief for Mark Janus and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a separate amicus brief. Both asked that the High Court strike down compulsory union fees for public employees as a violation of the First Amendment.
Most legal observers agreed that Scalia was set to cast the deciding fifth vote in favor of the plaintiffs. However, his death just weeks before the case was to be decided resulted in a deadlocked court and left Abood in place for the time being. Now, Janus provides another vehicle for the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of compelled union fees for public employees.
