Kumpf v. N.Y. State United Teachers
| Decision Date | 22 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-00402 (BKS/CFH) |
| Parties | JENNIFER KUMPF, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS; BUFFALO TEACHERS FEDERATION; BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Appearances:
For Plaintiff: David R. Dorey Nathan J. McGrath Tessa E. Shurr The Fairness Center
For Defendants New York State United Teachers and Buffalo Teachers Federation: Robert T. Reilly Andrea A. Wanner Timothy Connick Scott A. Kronland Altshuler Berzon LLP
For Defendant Buffalo City School District: Nathaniel J. Kuzma General Counsel Christopher R. Poole, Assistant Legal Counsel
Plaintiff Jennifer Kumpf brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants New York State United Teachers, Buffalo Teachers Federation, and the Buffalo City School District (the “District”). (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' deduction of union dues from Plaintiff's paycheck after she revoked her membership in October 2021 until July 2022 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments under Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018). (Dkt. No. 1). Presently before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt Nos. 19, 20). The parties have filed responsive papers. (Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 27, 29, 31). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motions are granted.
The Taylor Law, New York Civil Service Law § 202, provides public employees in New York the right to “join and participate in, or to refrain from . . . joining, or participating in, any employee organization of their own choosing.” The Taylor Law also gives public-sector unions representing public employees the right “to membership dues deductions” and empowers public employers to deduct membership dues on behalf of a union from the “salary of [] public employee[s]” “upon presentation of dues deduction authorization cards signed by individual employees.” N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 208.1(b). The Taylor Law provides that “[t]he right to such membership dues deduction shall remain in full force and effect until . . . an individual employee revokes membership in the [public-sector union] in writing in accordance with the terms of the signed authorization.” Id. § 208.1(b)(i).
Plaintiff is employed as a second-grade classroom teacher by the District's Buffalo Public Schools System. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 11). Plaintiff is a “public employee,” and the District is a “public employer,” within the meaning of the Taylor Law. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 14 (citing N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law §§ 201.6, 201.7)). As an employee in the “instructional division,” Plaintiff is “part of the bargaining unit that is represented exclusively for purposes of collective bargaining” by Buffalo Teachers Federation (“BTF”). (Id. ¶ 11). BTF is “a local affiliate of” New York State United Teachers (“NYSUT”). (Id. ¶ 13). Both BTF and NYSUT (collectively “Defendant Unions”) are “employee organizations” within the meaning of the Taylor Law. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13); N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 201.5. The District and BTF are parties to collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) “that governs the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment and recognizes BTF as Plaintiff's exclusive representative pursuant to the CBA and the Taylor Law.” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 14). Further, the District “issues wages to its employees, including Plaintiff, and processes payroll deductions of union dues for Defendant Unions from Plaintiff's wages pursuant to the requirements of the Taylor Law and the CBA.” (Id. ¶¶ 14, 19).
Plaintiff began her employment with the District in 2014. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 22). “[N]o one informed her that she had a right not to join Defendant Unions.” (Id. ¶ 23). Plaintiff “was given a membership card and dues deduction authorization and was required to sign it as a condition of her employment.” (Id. ¶ 24). Following Plaintiff's execution of the membership card, “the District automatically took deductions from Plaintiff's wages for the benefit of Defendant Unions.” (Id.).
On March 19, 2018, “at the request of Defendant Unions, Plaintiff signed another membership agreement and dues deduction authorization [form].” (Id. ¶ 25; Dkt. No. 1-2). The form provides, in relevant part:
(Dkt. No. 1-2). No additional window period was specified in the CBA. (See Dkt. No. 1-1; Dkt. No. 19-1, at 7-126). Plaintiff asserts that “prior to March 19, 2018, [she] did not sign and did not have any card describing or otherwise purporting to limit when she could revoke the deduction of union dues/and or fees from her wages as a nonmember.” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 26).
In 2021, “Plaintiff experienced a significant health issue,” which prompted her to contact “a BTF union-representative” and “ask[] for assistance in obtaining a work-from-home exemption from the District.” (Id. ¶ 27). However, the representative “responded by throwing up her hands and asking Plaintiff ‘What do you want me to do?'” (Id.). As a result, on October 24, 2021, “Plaintiff resigned from Defendant Unions and revoked her dues deduction authorization.”
(Id. ¶ 28). On November 1, 2021, Philip Rumore, the president of BTF sent Plaintiff a letter acknowledging “receipt of Plaintiff's ‘letter requesting to withdraw [her] membership'” from BTF. (Id. ¶ 29). Rumore advised Plaintiff that she was “permitted to drop [her] membership at any time” but that because “she had ‘signed a membership card with maintenance of dues language,'” she had a “contractual obligation to pay an amount equal to the balance of union dues until the next window period (August 1, 2022).”[2] (Id.). Rumore attached a “Voluntary Union Membership Withdrawal” form to his letter. (Id. ¶ 30). The withdrawal form required Plaintiff to attest that she (1) “understand[s] that [she has] elected to forfeit the [union] benefits,” and (2) understands that her “decision to withdraw from BTF may result in reduced bargaining strength which may, in turn, be detrimental to future collective bargaining wages, hours, working conditions, and benefits bargained by the BTF for all employees.” (Id.).
At the time Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case, April 29, 2022, Plaintiff was “not receiving union member benefits . . . even though union dues and/or fees . . . continue[d] to be deducted from her wages for Defendant Unions.” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 32). However, “Defendants never provided Plaintiff with written notice of her constitutional right as a nonmember to choose not to pay any union dues or fees to Defendant Unions.” (Id. ¶ 35). Nor did Defendants provide Plaintiff with “notice and an opportunity to object to how any nonconsensual union dues or fees deducted from her wages are spent.” (Id. ¶ 36). Plaintiff alleges “[u]pon information and belief, Defendant Unions use” the dues or fees deducted from her wages “while she was and is a nonmember for purposes of political speech and activity . . . to which Plaintiff objects.” (Id. ¶ 44).
The parties have informed the Court that Defendants ceased deducting union dues from Plaintiff's wages on July 1, 2022. (Dkt. No. 19-2, ¶ 18; Dkt. No. 25, at 8).
Defendants have submitted two declarations, (Dkt. No. 19-2, at 2-5 (declaration by Philip Rumore, president of BTF); Dkt. No. 20-1 ()), and several exhibits in support of their motions, including the CBA, (Dkt. No. 19-2, at 7-126), the March 19, 2018 dues deduction authorization signed by Plaintiff, (Dkt. No. 19-2, at 128), and the October 24, 2021 letter from Plaintiff to BTF, (Dkt. No. 19-2, at 130-31). To the extent these submissions are relevant to the Rule 12(b)(1) portion of Defendants' motions, the Court may consider them. Krajisnik Soccer Club, Inc. v. Krajisnik Football Club, Inc., No. 20-cv-1140, 2021 WL 2142924, at *2, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99456, at *5 () (citations omitted). However, to the extent Defendants offer these submissions in support of their Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must determine which exhibits, if any, it may consider in deciding Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
“Generally consideration of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is...
To continue reading
Request your trial