Fultz v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps.

549 F.Supp.3d 379

Miriam FULTZ, et al., Plaintiffs

v.AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13, et al., Defendants

20-cv-2107

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed July 16, 2021

Curtis M. Schube, Danielle Ra Susanj, Justin Thomas Miller, Nathan J. McGrath, The Fairness Center, Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Amy L. Rosenberger, Willig, Williams & Davidson, Philadelphia, PA, Ramya Ravindran, Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendant American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 13.

Nancy A. Walker, Ryan B. Smith, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Fair Labor Section, Philadelphia, PA, Caleb Curtis Enerson, PA Office of Attorney General, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants Thomas W. Wolf, Michael Newsome, Brian T. Lyman.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

John E. Jones III, Chief Judge Presently pending before the Court is the Motion of Commonwealth Defendants to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ("the Motion"), filed by Thomas W. Wolf, Michael Newsom, and Brian T. Lyman (collectively, "the Commonwealth Defendants"). (Doc. 22). The instant claims arose when Plaintiffs, all public employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, attempted to resign their memberships in the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 13, ("the Union"). (Doc. 18 at ¶¶ 50-51). While, Plaintiffs allege, the Commonwealth Defendants "do not consider Plaintiffs [...] to be members of Council 13" at present, they have nevertheless continued to deduct union membership dues from each Plaintiff's paycheck. (Id. at ¶ 53). Plaintiffs now aver that this conduct is in violation of the Supreme Court's recent holding that unions cannot compel non-member public employees to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment. (Id. ¶ 2 (citing Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018) )). Commonwealth Defendants disagree, arguing that Janus does not apply and asking us to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety. For the reasons that follow, we will grant in part and deny in part the Motion.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

We take the following from Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and assume its veracity, as we must.

a. The Parties

Plaintiffs Miriam Fultz, Darleen Dalto, Lucinda Radaker, Lacey Bainbridge, Carol Shaner, Jason Kohute, Kurtis Coates, Lisa Southers, Brittany Zappasodi, Scott Carter, Debra Kerstetter, Ashley Cluck, Blaine Chapman, and Barbara Richter are all current "public employe[es]" and "Commonwealth employe[es]" as those terms are defined by 43 P.S. § 1101.301(2) and 43 P.S. § 1101.301(15). (Id. at ¶¶ 9-22). Each Plaintiff was, at some point, a dues-paying member of the Union, but each resigned their respective membership between May 8, 2020 and December 23, 2020. (Id. ). Of note, eight Plaintiffs—Miriam Fultz, Darleen Dalto, Lacey Bainbridge, Scott Carter, Debra Kerstetter, Ashley Cluck, Blaine Chapman, and Barbara Richter—joined the Union prior to the Janus decision. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10, 12, 18-22). Six Plaintiffs—Lucinda Radaker, Carol Shaner, Jason Kohute, Kurtis Coates, Lisa Southers, and Brittany Zappasodi—joined the Union after the Janus decision. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 13-17).

The Union is an "Employe organization" and a "Representative," as those terms are defined by 43 P.S. § 1101.301(3) and 43 P.S. § 1101.301(4). (Id. at ¶ 23). "Pursuant to collective bargaining agreements, Council 13 represents certain employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including Plaintiffs and proposed class members, exclusively for purposes of collective bargaining with the Commonwealth." (Id. ).

Defendant Thomas Wolf is the Governor of Pennsylvania and "is generally responsible for the operations of the Commonwealth and the enforcement of its laws, including labor relations." (Id. at ¶ 24). Defendant Michael Newsom is Secretary of the Office of Administration for Pennsylvania, and "negotiated, entered into, and is the signatory to, on behalf of the Commonwealth, the CBA governing the terms and conditions of employment for Plaintiffs and proposed class members." (Id. at ¶ 25). Defendant Newsom is also responsible for human relations for Commonwealth Employees. (Id. ).Defendant Brian T. Lyman is the Chief Accounting Officer for Pennsylvania and "oversees the payroll system for the Commonwealth, which includes processing union dues and other payroll deductions pursuant to the requirements of the CBA." (Id. at ¶ 26). The Commonwealth is a "Public employer" within the meaning of 43 P.S. § 1101.30(1) and, "[t]hrough its officers and agents [...] negotiated for and entered into the collective bargaining agreement with [the Union] that governs Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ terms and conditions of employment." (Id. at ¶ 24).

b. Statutory Framework

The Public Employe [sic ] Relations Act, ("PERA"), provides that:

It shall be lawful for public employes [sic ] to organize, form, join or assist in employe organizations or to engage in lawful concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection or to bargain collectively through representatives of their own free choice and such employes shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities, except as may be required pursuant to a maintenance of membership provision of a collective bargaining agreement.

(Doc. 23 at 8 (citing 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1101.401)) (emphasis added). Specifically, PERA "authorizes public employers and employee organizations and/or representatives to engage in collective bargaining relevant to membership dues deductions." (Id. at ¶ 47 (citing 43 P.S. § 1101.705 )). Pursuant to PERA, the Union entered into collective bargaining agreements, ("the CBA"), with the Commonwealth that "have controlled the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ [...] employment at all relevant times hereto." (Id. at ¶ 45).

PERA defines "membership dues deduction" as "the practice of a public employer to deduct from the wages of a public employe [sic ], with his written consent, an amount for the payment of his membership dues in an employe [sic] organization, which deduction is transmitted by the public employer to the employe [sic]organization." (Id. at ¶ 46 (quoting 43 P.S. § 1101.301(11) )). Notably, any such authorizations "shall remain in effect until expressly revoked in writing by the employee in accordance with the terms of the [initial] authorization.

c. Provisions of the Union Agreement

As permitted by PERA, Article 4 of the CBA, entitled "Dues Deductions," requires the Commonwealth, as an employer, "to deduct dues from the wages of an employee for Council 13, subject to the terms and conditions of the CBA." (Id. at ¶ 48). Each Plaintiff's Council 13 Membership Card contains the terms of those voluntary dues deduction authorizations.¹

Those Cards serve as each employee's application for membership in the Union and officially authorize the Commonwealth to make voluntary dues deductions from their paychecks. (Docs. 24-3-24-16). Specifically, Plaintiffs, by signing their respective Membership Cards, agreed to: "voluntarily authorize and direct my Employer to deduct from my pay each pay period, regardless of whether I am or remain a member of the Union, the amount of dues certified by the Union." (Id. ). Furthermore, the Cards acknowledged that each Plaintiff agreed that:

This voluntary authorization and assignment shall be irrevocable, regardless of whether I am or remain a member of the Union, for a period of one year from the date of execution of this authorization or until the termination date of the collective bargaining agreement (if there is one) between my Employer and the Union, whichever occurs sooner, and for the years to come, unless I give my Employer and the Union written notice of revocation during the fifteen (15) days before the annual anniversary date of this authorization or, for public sector contracts, during the fifteen (15) days before the date of termination of the appropriate collective bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Union, whichever occurs sooner.

(Id. ). In other words, while Plaintiffs are free to resign their Union memberships at any time, they agreed to be financially responsible for Union membership dues for a period of one year from the date of signing their Cards. Plaintiffs may relieve themselves of their dues deductions obligations only by notifying the Union and the Commonwealth of their desire to do so, in writing, during the fifteen days prior to the one-year anniversary of their initial Card signing.

d. Plaintiff's Alleged Union Resignations

Each named Plaintiff resigned their respective Union membership between May 8, 2020 and December 23, 2020. (Doc. 18 at ¶¶ 9-22). They did so by providing notice to both the Union and Commonwealth. (Id. at ¶ 52). Plaintiffs aver that Commonwealth Defendants "do not consider Plaintiffs and proposed class members to be members" of the Union at this time. (Id. at ¶ 53). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs maintain, Commonwealth Defendants "refused to stop deducting dues from Plaintiffs’ and proposed class members’ wages for Council 13 as of the date of [each] membership resignation" from the Union. (Id. at ¶ 54). Instead, Plaintiffs claim, they have been informed that "they must continue dues deductions to and financial support of Council 13 indefinitely, at least until a purported annual 15-day escape window." (Id. at 55). As such, Plaintiffs will be required to "re-notify" both the Union and the Commonwealth "of their desire to end financial support of Council 13 within the purported annual 15-day escape window in order to have the Commonwealth cease deducting financial support for Council 13 [from Plaintiffs’ wages]." (Id. at ¶ 56).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs commenced this action on November 12, 2020. (Doc. 1). Upon request of the parties, we stayed proceedings in this case on January 12, 2020 pending the Third Circuit's resolution of ...