Federal judge rejects Minnesota teachers, transportation worker lawsuits seeking refund of union fees

On Feb. 12, a U.S. district court judge ruled against three Minnesota teachers seeking refunds of fees they were required to pay to their union before Janus v. AFSCME. In Janus, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public sector unions cannot require non-member employees to pay agency fees covering the costs of non-political union activities.

The district court ruling also applied to a Minnesota Department of Transportation employee’s suit against American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council No. 5.

Parties to the suit

The plaintiffs in the first case were Minnesota public school teachers Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul Hanson. Douglas Seaton and James Dickey of the Upper Midwest Law Center, Jonathan F. Mitchell, and Talcott Franklin represented the plaintiffs. The Upper Midwest Law Center states in its mission that it “fights to limit governmental, special interest, and public union overreach.”

The defendants were the labor unions Education Minnesota, Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and Shakopee Education Association. Attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP and Education Minnesota represented the defendants.

In the second case, the plaintiff was Thomas Piekarski, a Minnesota Department of Transportation employee. The defendant was AFSCME Council No. 5.

What’s at issue

In the first case, Hoekman and teacher Deborah York filed a class action complaint on June 18, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit sought refunds for non-union member fair-share fees, as well as union dues collected from union members who would not have joined the union if non-members were not charged fair-share fees. Plaintiffs also asked the court to prevent the unions from collecting dues without employees’ written consent and require the unions to respect membership resignation requests regardless of time of year. An amended complaint including additional plaintiffs was filed on Oct. 1, 2018. (Six plaintiffs, including York, were dismissed from the suit on July 1, 2019.)

On Nov. 30, 2018, the defendants filed a brief saying that they acted in good faith under the law at the time of collection and that the Janus decision should not be applied retroactively.

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the plaintiffs’ request to certify the lawsuit as a class action on May 27, 2020.

The original plaintiff in the second case, Jayme Prokes, submitted her class action complaint on Aug. 14, 2018.

How the court ruled

On Feb. 12, Nelson ruled in favor of the defendants in both cases. She wrote: “Like every court to consider the issue, the Court finds that the good faith defense bars Hoekman and Hanson’s § 1983 claims for a refund of fair-share fees paid prior to Janus.” Further, “[b]ecause the Defendants have ceased deducting fair-share fees from Plaintiffs’ paychecks and have averred that Plaintiffs will not be required to pay union fees unless they voluntarily rejoin their unions, Plaintiffs do not have standing for prospective relief.”

President Barack Obama (D) appointed Neson to the court in 2013.

What comes next

After the ruling, the Upper Midwest Law Center said: “… our public employee clients immediately appealed on February 16, 2021 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. We are hopeful that the Eighth Circuit will reverse these decisions and reinstate our public employee clients’ claims for recovery of unconstitutionally withheld dues payments to government unions. These cases and several others around the country could ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court.”

Denise Specht, president of Education Minnesota, said: “We anticipate this case, and similar cases around the country, will be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court with the goal of getting a ruling that would financially cripple the union movement in the United States. … Our union is ready to stand with other unions of working people to make our case in any courtroom.”

The case name and number is Hoekman v. Education Minnesota, 0:18-cv-01686.

What we’re reading

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state

We are currently tracking 75 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking.

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s)

Recent legislative actions

Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.

Maine LD97: This bill would bar public-sector and private-sector employers from requiring employees to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.
- Republican sponsorship.
- Labor and Housing Committee hearing Feb. 17.
Maine LD449: Existing law requires public employers and collective bargaining agents to meet within 10 days of receiving written notice of a request for a bargaining meeting. This applies only if the parties have not otherwise agreed in an earlier contract. This bill would eliminate that exception.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Labor and Housing Committee hearing scheduled for March 1.
Maryland HB1321: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of a union as a condition of employment.
- Republican sponsorship.
- House Economic Matters Committee hearing scheduled for March 5.
Maryland SB521: This bill would extend collective bargaining rights to certain graduate students within the University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, or St. Mary’s College of Maryland.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Senate Finance Committee hearing Feb. 18.
Maryland SB556: This bill would establish a separate collective bargaining unit for teachers at the Maryland School for the Deaf.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 25.
Maryland SB746: This bill would establish collective bargaining rights for certain community college employees.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled for March 4.
Missouri SB118: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of a union as a condition of employment.
- Republican sponsorship.
- Senate General Laws Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 23.
Missouri SB244: This bill would require authorizations be given before public employers begin deducting union dues or fees from employees’ paychecks. It would also require “clear and compelling evidence that the authorization was freely given.”
- Republican sponsorship.
- Senate General Laws Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 23.
Montana HB251: This bill would bar employers from requiring employees to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of a union as a condition of employment. It would also allow employees to revoke payroll deductions for union dues at any time with written notice.
- Republican sponsorship.
- House Business and Labor Committee hearing Feb. 16.
Montana SB228: This bill would allow a public employee to withdraw from a union and cease paying dues by providing 14 days written notice. It would also prohibit an employee who withdraws from a union from rejoining that union for one year.
- Republican sponsorship.
- Senate State Administration Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 24.
New Hampshire HB206: This bill would establish that collective bargaining strategy discussions in which only one party is involved would not be subject to the state’s right-to-know law.
- Republican sponsorship.
- House Judiciary committee hearing Feb. 19.
New Hampshire HB348: This bill would require a public employer to provide notice of a new or amended collective bargaining agreement.
- Republican sponsorship.
- House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services Committee reported favorably with amendment Feb. 17.
Oregon SB580: This bill would amend the law’s definition of “employment relations” to include class size and caseload limits as mandatory collective bargaining subjects for school districts.
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Senate Education Committee hearing scheduled for March 3.
Tennessee SJR0002: This bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would bar any person, corporation, or governmental entity from denying employment due to an individual’s affiliation status with a union or other employee organization.
- Republican sponsorship.
- Senate Commerce And Labor Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 23.
Washington SB5055: This bill would prohibit law enforcement personnel from entering into collective bargaining agreements that prevent, prohibit, or otherwise alter local government ordinances or charters providing for “civilian review of law enforcement personnel.”
- Democratic sponsorship.
- Senate passed Feb. 18.