Hoekman v. Educ. Minn.

• Decision Date: 12 February 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 18-cv-01686 (SRN/ECW), Case No. 18-cv-02384 (SRN/ECW)
• Citation: 519 F.Supp.3d 497
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
• Parties: Linda HOEKMAN, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul Hanson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EDUCATION MINNESOTA, Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and Shakopee Education Association, Defendants. Thomas P. Piekarski, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AFSCME Council No. 5, Defendants.

519 F.Supp.3d 497

Linda HOEKMAN, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul Hanson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.EDUCATION MINNESOTA, Anoka Hennepin Education Minnesota, National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, and Shakopee Education Association, Defendants.

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

v.AFSCME Council No. 5, Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-01686 (SRN/ECW)

Case No. 18-cv-02384 (SRN/ECW)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed February 12, 2021

Douglas P. Seaton and James V.F. Dickey, Upper Midwest Law Center, 8421 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 105, Golden Valley, MN 55426; Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, Mitchell Law PLLC, 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400, Austin, TX 78701; and Talcott Franklin, Talcott Franklin PC, 1920 McKinney Avenue, Seventh Floor, Dallas, TX 75201, for Plaintiffs.

Amanda C. Lynch, Danielle Leonard, Patrick C. Pitts, and Scott A. Kronland, Altshuler Berzon LLP, 177 Post Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108; and Cedrick Frazier, David Aron, and Margaret A. Luger-Nikolai, Education Minnesota, 41 Sherburne Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55103, for the Education Minnesota Defendants.

April Pullium, Georgina Yeomans, Jacob Karabell, John M. West, Leon Dayan, and Ramya Ravindran, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, 805 Fifteenth Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005; and Josie Doris Hegarty, AFSCME Council 5, 300 Hardman Avenue South, South Saint Paul, MN 55075, for the AFSCME Defendants.

ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed in two related cases [18-cv-01686 (hereafter, "the Hoekman matter"), Doc. Nos. 145, 160; 18-cv-02384 (hereafter, "the Piekarski matter"), Doc. Nos. 99, 106]. Based on a review of the files, submissions, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons below, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in both cases.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1977, the United States Supreme Court ruled that public-sector employers and labor unions representing public-sector employees could, consistent with the First Amendment, compel public-sector employees to contribute to a union's collective bargaining costs even if the employees refused to join the union. Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ. , 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977). Approximately forty years later, the Supreme Court overruled Abood and held that such "fair-share" or "agency" fee arrangements violate employees’ First Amendment rights. Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31 , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018).

After the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus , Plaintiffs in the instant cases filed class action complaints against their labor unions, seeking the return of fees paid to their unions before and after the Janus ruling. In the Hoekman matter, Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul Hanson (collectively, "the Hoekman Plaintiffs") are current and former public school teachers who filed suit against Education Minnesota, a Minnesota labor union, and its affiliate organizations (collectively, "the Education Minnesota Defendants"). In the Piekarski matter, Thomas Piekarski is an employee of the Minnesota Department of Transportation who filed suit against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5 and its affiliates (collectively, "the AFSCME Defendants").¹

Prior to Janus , the Plaintiffs were faced with the choice whether to join their unions and pay full membership dues, or refuse to join and pay fair-share fees, an arrangement permitted by the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act ("PELRA"), Minn. Stat. § 179A.01 et seq. Some of the Plaintiffs chose to join their unions, and now seek a refund of the "compulsory portion" of the membership dues they paid prior to Janus , equal to the fair-share fees that even non-members were required to pay. Other Plaintiffs elected not to join their unions, and seek a refund of the fair-share fees they paid prior to Janus . Plaintiffs seek this relief, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as state tort law.

A. Linda Hoekman's Claims

Hoekman has been a teacher employed by Anoka-Hennepin School District 11 since 1997. (Hoekman Dep. [18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 95-3], at 17.) Until approximately 2006, Hoekman was a union member and paid full membership dues to the union representing her bargaining unit. (Id. at 44-45.) From 2006 to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus , Hoekman was a non-union member and paid fair-share fees. (Id. ; Decl. of Robert Gardner ("Gardner Decl.") [18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 163], at ¶ 14.) After the Supreme Court issued the Janus ruling on June 27, 2018, the Education Minnesota Defendants immediately ceased collecting fair-share fees from Hoekman's paychecks, and Hoekman will not pay further fees unless she voluntarily rejoins the union. (Gardner Decl. ¶ 14.) Hoekman seeks a refund of the fair-share fees she paid prior to Janus .

B. Mary Dee Buros's Claims

Buros is an Education Coordinator employed by Shakopee Public Schools, and became a union member in 1997. (Id. ¶ 15; Buros Dep. [18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 95-5], at 14-15.) At her deposition, Buros testified that she did not know that she had a choice between joining the union and paying full membership dues or declining to join the union and paying fair-share fees. (Buros Dep. at 50-59.) Indeed, shortly after starting her employment, a group of fellow teachers told Buros that all the teachers were union members, and that membership was "mandatory." (Id. at 58.) However, Buros testified that no union representative ever told her that membership was mandatory. (Id. at 60.) In September 2017, Buros read and signed a dues authorization agreement, which provided:

I agree to submit dues to Education Minnesota and hereby request and voluntarily authorize my employer to deduct from my wages an amount equal to the regular monthly dues uniformly applicable to members of Education Minnesota or monthly service fee, and further that such amount so deducted be sent to such local union for and on my behalf. This authorization shall remain in effect and shall be automatically renewed from year to year, irrespective of my membership in the union, unless I revoke it by submitting written notice to both my employer and the local union during the seven-day period that begins on September 24 and ends on September 30. Such revocation will take effect on October 1 in the year in which I submit the revocation.

(Gardner Decl., Ex. A ("Buros Dues Authorization"); Buros Dep. at 54-55.) Like the decision to join the union, Buros testified that she did not believe signing the authorization agreement was optional. (Buros Dep. at 54-56.)

Following the Janus decision, Buros resigned from the union by email on August 3, 2018. (Gardner Decl. ¶ 18.) Buros's email, addressed to Dale Anderson, the President of the Shakopee Education Association, and Michael Greeley, a payroll specialist at Shakopee Public Schools, stated:

I'm sending this to let you know that I've made the decision to discontinue my union membership. I am resigning my membership in Education and all of its affiliates, including Shakopee Education Association and the National Education Association, effective immediately.

(Buros Resignation Email [18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 147-1].) Although the Education Minnesota Defendants "processed immediately" Buros's resignation, they continued to deduct membership dues pursuant to the September 2017 dues authorization agreement. (Gardner Decl. ¶¶ 18, 20.) On September 17, 2018, Buros emailed Greeley to ask why the district continued to deduct union dues from her paychecks. (Buros-Greeley Email [18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 147-2].) Greeley informed Buros that teachers can only opt-out of the dues authorization between September 24 and September 30 each year, and that she would need to contact Anderson during that window. (Id. ) On September 25, 2018, Buros submitted a dues revocation request, and the Education Minnesota Defendants ceased deducting membership dues on October 1, 2018. (Gardner Decl. ¶¶ 19-20.) No further dues will be deducted from Buros's paychecks unless she chooses to rejoin the union. (Id. ¶ 22.)

Buros seeks to recover the "compulsory portion" of the membership dues she paid prior to Janus —that is, the portion of her dues that she would have had to pay even if she had declined union membership.

This amount is equal to the fair-share fees that non-members were required to pay at that time. In addition, Buros seeks to recover all dues taken from her paychecks after her August 3, 2018 resignation from the union.

C. Paul Hanson's Claims

Hanson is a teacher employed by Centennial School District 12. (Hanson Dep. [18-cv-01686, Doc. No. 95-4], at 57.) Hanson has never been a union member, but was required to pay fair-share fees prior to the Janus decision. (Id. at 14-15.) After the Supreme Court issued the Janus ruling on June 27, 2018, the Education Minnesota Defendants immediately ceased collecting fair-share fees from Hanson's paychecks, and Hanson will not pay further fees unless he voluntarily rejoins the union. (Gardner Decl. ¶ 15.) Hanson seeks a refund of the fair-share fees he paid prior to Janus .

D. Thomas Piekarski's Claims

Piekarski is an employee of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. (Decl. of Diane Johnston ("Johnston Decl.") [18-cv-02384, Doc. No. 109-1], at ¶ 3.) Piekarski became a union member in 2009, and began paying full membership dues. (Piekarski Dep. [18-cv-02384, Doc. No. 109-2], at 24-26.) In 2015, Piekarski briefly served as union president, but resigned over his concerns about the union's "waste of funds." (Id. at 38, 44.) On October 3, 2017, Piekarski emailed union representatives and requested that they switch his paycheck deductions to fair-share fees rather than full membership dues. (Oct. 2017 Email [18-cv-02384, ...