Hoekman v. Educ. Minn.

41 F.4th 969

Linda HOEKMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

Mary Dee Buros, Plaintiff - Appellant,

Paul Hanson, all appellants on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.EDUCATION MINNESOTA, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota; Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota; National Education Association ; American Federation of Teachers, Defendants - Appellees,Shakopee Education Association, as representatives of the class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota, Defendant - Appellee.

Freedom Foundation; Joseph Johnson; National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s).

Thomas P. Piekarski, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, Defendant - Appellee.

Linda Hoekman, Plaintiff - Appellant,

Mary Dee Buros, Plaintiff - Appellant,

Paul Hanson, all appellants on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.Education Minnesota, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota; Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota; National Education Association ; American Federation of Teachers, Defendants - Appellees,Shakopee Education Association, as representatives of the class of all chapters and affiliates of Education Minnesota Defendant - Appellee.

Thomas P. Piekarski, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, as representative of the class of all chapters and affiliates of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 21-1366

No. 21-1372

No. 21-2675

No. 21-2687

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 16, 2022

Filed: July 25, 2022

James Dickey, Douglas Seaton, Upper Midwest Law Center, Golden Valley, MN, Talcott Franklin, Talcott Franklin PC, Dallas, TX, Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Mitchell Law, PLLC, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs - Appellants Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul Hanson in Nos. 21-1366 and 21-2675.

David Aron, Cedrick Frazier, Education Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, Scott A. Kronland, Danielle Leonard, Amanda C. Lynch, Patrick Casey Pitts, Altshuler & Berzon, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Agnes Luger-Nikolai, Gregg M. Corwin & Associates, Saint Louis Park, MN, for Defendants - Appellees Education Minnesota, Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, and Shakopee Education Association in No. 21-1366.

David Aron, Cedrick Frazier, Education Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, Scott A. Kronland, Danielle Leonard, Amanda C. Lynch, Patrick Casey Pitts, Altshuler & Berzon, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Agnes Luger-Nikolai, Gregg M. Corwin & Associates, Saint Louis Park, MN, Jeffrey William Burritt, National Education Association, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant - Appellee National Education Association in Nos. 21-1366 and 21-2675.

Scott A. Kronland, Danielle Leonard, Amanda C. Lynch, Patrick Casey Pitts, Altshuler & Berzon, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant - Appellee American Federation of Teachers in No. 21-1366.

James Abernathy, Freedom Foundation, Olympia, WA, for Amici Curiae Freedom Foundation, and Joseph Johnson in No. 21-1366.

William L. Messenger, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, VA, for Amicus Curiae National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. in No. 21-1366.

James Dickey, Douglas Seaton, Upper Midwest Law Center, Golden Valley, MN, Talcott Franklin, Talcott Franklin PC, Dallas, TX, Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Mitchell Law, PLLC, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff - Appellant Thomas P. Piekarski in Nos. 21-1372 and 21-2687.

Leon Dayan, Jacob R. Karabell, April Pullium, Ramya Ravindran, John M. West, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC, Josie Doris Hegarty, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, South Saint Paul, MN, for Defendant - Appellee American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5 in Nos. 21-1372 and 21-2687.

David Aron, Cedrick Frazier, Education Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, Scott A. Kronland, Danielle Leonard, Amanda C. Lynch, Patrick Casey Pitts, Altshuler & Berzon, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Agnes Luger-Nikolai, Gregg M. Corwin & Associates, Saint Louis Park, MN, for Defendants - Appellees Education Minnesota, Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, and Shakopee Education Association in No. 21-2675.

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

The appellants in these cases are four Minnesota state employees who sued unions that represented their local bargaining units. In light of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018), the employees sought monetary relief based on the amount of so-called "fair-share" fees that were deducted from employee paychecks for the benefit of the unions. The district court¹ granted summary judgment in favor of the unions, and we affirm.

I.

Minnesota law permits public employees to bargain collectively with the State by designating a labor union to serve as the exclusive representative for employees in their bargaining unit. Minn. Stat. § 179A.06, subdiv. 2. Employees may decline to join the union. Id. If an employee chooses not to join, however, state law permits the union to require the employee to contribute a "fair-share" fee equal to the cost of membership dues, less the cost of benefits available only to members. Id. , subdiv. 3. The statute caps these fees at eighty-five percent of what the union charges for regular membership dues. Id. To collect fees from a non-member employee, the union must send a written notice to the employee's public employer, at which point the employer is required to "deduct the fee from the earnings of the employee and transmit the fee" to the union after thirty days. Id.

In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education , 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), the Supreme Court upheld a similar regime that allowed public-sector unions to compel the payment of fees from state employees who chose not to join the unions. The Court concluded that the unions could extract fair-share fees from non-members so long as the fees were used to fund projects "germane to [the unions’] duties as collective-bargaining representative," rather than ideological or political causes. Id. at 235-36, 97 S.Ct. 1782. Forty-one years later in Janus , the Supreme Court overruled Abood . 138 S. Ct. at 2460. The Court held that public-sector unions violated the First Amendment by deducting fair-share fees from non-member employees without first obtaining affirmative consent from the employees. Id. at 2486.

The employees in this case sued the public-sector unions that represented their bargaining units under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their rights under the First Amendment. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the unions.

Paul Hanson and Linda Hoekman are public school teachers. Hanson declined to join the union that represented his bargaining unit. Hoekman originally joined her union but then quit around 2006. The unions deducted fair-share fees from their paychecks until the Supreme Court decided Janus . The teachers sued the unions, and asserted that they were entitled to a refund of these fees. The district court concluded that the unions’ "good faith reliance on [the Minnesota statute] and forty years of Supreme Court precedent following Abood " provided a defense to liability under § 1983.

Mary Dee Buros is an education coordinator. Buros joined her union in 1997 and paid full membership dues. On September 11, 2017, she reauthorized her employer to remit dues to her union. The signed form provided that Buros's authorization would automatically renew from year to year, "irrespective of [her] membership in the union," unless Buros revoked consent during a seven-day period from September 24 to 30 of any given year. If she revoked consent during the seven-day window, then the revocation would become effective on October 1 of the same year. In August 2018, Buros resigned her membership. The union "processed immediately" Buros's resignation request, but continued to collect dues. Buros submitted a revocation of her dues authorization during the revocation period on September 25, 2018. The revocation became effective on October 1, 2018, and the union stopped collecting dues as of that date.

Buros sued to recover what she calls the "compulsory portion" of the dues that she paid between 1997, when she first joined the union, and the Supreme Court's June 2018 ruling in Janus . This amount is equal to the fair-share fees that the union could have deducted before Janus if she had not joined the union. She also sought the full amount taken from her wages between her resignation from the union in August 2018 and the effective date of her revocation of consent on October 1, 2018.

The district court concluded that Janus did not support Buros's claim for the "compulsory portion" of her dues. The court reasoned that Janus concerned the rights of non-members of the union, and did not extend to those who opted to join a union. The court also decided that Buros was not entitled to a refund of the dues that she paid after resigning. The court explained that the union collected these dues pursuant to Buros's written authorization to collect dues through October 1, 2018, and that Janus did not invalidate the authorization.

Thomas Piekarski works in highway maintenance for...