CLEVELAND, Ohio — Three Kent State University workers sued the university and a labor union Monday, saying the university continues to deduct dues from their paychecks even though they withdrew from the labor organization following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year.
A massive class-action lawsuit filed in Illinois on Wednesday could force unions to refund hundreds of millions of dollars in agency fees paid by thousands of workers nationwide prior to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year in Janus v. AFSCME.
Prior to Janus, Hughes argued, workers were faced with a “false choice” — they could pay full membership dues and become a union member, or pay a substantial amount of those dues and not become a member. The Supreme Court validated Hughes’ reasoning last June, holding not only that public unions violated the First Amendment by taking money out of unwilling workers’ paychecks to fund collective bargaining, but also that employees must “clearly and affirmatively consent” before any fees or dues are collected.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday argues that more than 2,700 state employees are entitled to money they paid to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 from May 1, 2017 — the furthest back they can demand the money under a state statute of limitations — through June 28, 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to make public employees pay union dues. Attorneys for the plaintiffs say they’re seeking close to $2 million from the union.
Annamarie Hannay, Adda Gape and John Kohl, who all work as custodians in student residence halls, say in the lawsuit that the university continues to deduct dues for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union. The suit says the union refuses to honor the resignation of the employees outside of “opt-out” periods spelled out in a collective bargaining agreement.
An employee of the Moline-Coal Valley School District has filed a federal lawsuit against the district and the state’s largest public sector union, claiming both refused to stop deducting union dues from her paycheck months after she left the union.
“Since November 2018, the union and the school district have been fully aware they do not have permission to collect money from my paycheck,” Bennett said in a press release from the nonprofit law firm that is representing her. “I submitted my resignation as soon as I could after learning about the decision. The union did not inform me of my rights after the Janus decision, and I should not have to wait months to exercise them.”
I recently sued my union. It’s not something I ever expected to do. But I also never thought an organization that claims to champion workers’ rights would deny me the opportunity to exercise mine.
I’ve been working as an income maintenance caseworker for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 2014. My job is to review applications and eligibility for the Commonwealth’s welfare programs.
In the 10 months since the U.S. Supreme Court restored workers’ rights and affirmed the tenets of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, more than 210,000 public employees across the country no longer are being forced to pay fees to unions they don’t support.
They can thank Illinois’ Mark Janus and others like him for their newfound freedom.
While hundreds of thousands have been freed from paying these unconstitutional fees, many unions still are making it as difficult as possible for workers to exercise their rights.
Sun, 04/14/2019 – 7:00am | Dan McCaleb
In the 10 months since the U.S. Supreme Court restored workers’ rights and affirmed the tenets of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, more than 210,000 public employees across the country no longer are being forced to pay fees to unions they don’t support.
They can thank Illinois’ Mark Janus and others like him for their newfound freedom.
Janus was a former child support specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. He was forced to pay AFSCME Council 31 a part of his salary for 10 years, even though he declined to join the union and disagreed with the union’s politics — including their collective-bargaining position of demanding huge pay increases from a state that is broke.
Union advocates maintained the dues Janus was forced to pay to AFSCME were his “fair share” for the wages and benefits the union negotiated on his behalf.
And for 40 years, a legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1977 had backed the unions.
But Janus wasn’t satisfied with the precedent. He felt strongly that his First Amendment rights guaranteeing his freedom to associate with whom he wanted — or not to associate with a union he wanted no part of — were being violated.
So he joined a lawsuit that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Last June, the Supreme Court agreed with him and struck down forced union fees as unconstitutional.
Since then, more than 210,000 Americans who were being forced to pay these fees to two of the largest public-sector unions no longer are paying.
That statistic is based on analysis from U.S. Department of Labor reports released last week.
“These numbers are an incredible confirmation of what we argued during my case: that all across the country, hundreds of thousands of government workers like me were forced against their will to give money to government unions, just so they could keep their jobs,” Janus said. “That’s why the decision in my case is so powerful. It freed these workers, and each of the 5 million public-sector workers in America, from mandatory union fees.”
Janus left his state of Illinois job shortly after the Supreme Court decision.
He now is a senior fellow with the Chicago-based Liberty Justice Center, which represented him during his lawsuit against the forced fees. Janus and the rest of the LJC team continue their fight for workers’ rights.
While hundreds of thousands have been freed from paying these unconstitutional fees, many unions still are making it as difficult as possible for workers to exercise their rights.
The Liberty Justice Center, for example, is representing two University of California system workers who resigned from their unions and opted out of paying union fees in the wake of Janus vs. AFSCME.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the workers say the university continues to deduct these fees. Similar lawsuits have been filed in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon and elsewhere.
“Unfortunately, thousands more government workers are facing obstacles exercising their Janus rights,” Janus said. “My fight on their behalf will continue until all government workers can easily exercise their right to choose whether to support a union or not.”
Two University of California employees filed a federal lawsuit in Los Angeles, alleging union dues were illegally deducted from their paychecks despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that public workers are not required to pay fees to the unions representing them, it was announced Thursday.
Two University of California system employees claim they are effectively being held “against their will” and forced to pay monthly union dues, despite a landmark Supreme Court ruling last summer barring public-sector unions from requiring nonmembers to pay so-called agency fees without their consent.
Shalea Oliver had been trying to leave her union for more than a year when she found a website offering help.
It had a template resignation letter that she could send to her union, SEIU Local 668, and a form to fill out if the letter wasn’t effective, which she did. Next, an organization called the Liberty Justice Center got in touch.
StandWithWorkers.org is operated by the Liberty Justice Center. There is a lot of misinformation surrounding the Janus decision. StandWithWorkers.org serves as an educational resource to help government workers understand their options.
This website (the “Site”) is provided for informational purposes only. The information and materials contained herein are not intended to and do not constitute legal advice or the formation of an attorney-client relationship. Although the information on this Site relates to legal issues, no attorney-client relationship is created between you and the Liberty Justice Center and/or its employees when you use the Site or its materials. The information provided on this Site may not apply to your particular facts or circumstances; accordingly, you should seek legal counsel from a licensed attorney concerning your particular issues. Please be advised that if you submit information to us via this Site, no attorney-client relationship is created, and any such communications are not considered confidential.
© 2024 Liberty Justice Center, All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy
