Law & Courts

High Court Declines Appeals From Teachers Seeking Union-Fee Refunds Based on ‘Janus’ Case

By Mark Walsh — January 25, 2021 4 min read
supreme court SOC

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up appeals from teachers and other public employees who do not belong to their unions and sought to pursue refunds for years of collective-bargaining fees after the high court’s landmark 2018 decision barring the collection of such fees.

The court’s actions, while not a ruling on the merits of the cases, was a practical victory for the teachers’ unions and other public-employee labor organizations, who faced millions of dollars in financial liabilities if the objecting employees’ claims were revived.

The cases have been pursued with the backing of some of the same union opponents who were involved in the case that led to the court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31.

In that 5-4 decision, the justices overruled a 1977 precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that had authorized the collection of agency fees from public employees who refuse to join their union. The Janus case involved an employee of a state agency, but the majority discussed at length its view that collective bargaining in education was a matter of public concern. Objecting employees could not be compelled under the First Amendment to help fund, through their collective-bargaining fees, union speech with which they disagreed, the court said.

The Janus decision put a dent in union treasuries as the so-called agency fees could no longer be collected from objecting employees. But the efforts to claw back years of past fees would likely have been far more onerous for the unions.

For example, in one of the appeals before the justices, an Illinois teacher sought class action status in her suit and some refunds of fees she paid to the National Education Association and its affiliates for some 30 years.

Stacey Mooney, a teacher in the Eureka Community School District No. 140, argued in court papers that she and others in her position should be able to recoup past collective-bargaining fees even if the unions collected them in good faith.

“No one gets to keep money or property that is taken in good faith but in violation of another’s constitutional rights,” said the teacher’s appeal to the Supreme Court in Mooney v. Illinois Education Association (Case No. 19-1126).

Mooney lost in federal district court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago. That court rejected her claim the same day in late 2019 that it turned away a similar claim for a refund of past fees by Mark Janus, the Illinois state employee whose lawsuit against the collection of such fees led to the Supreme Court overruling its Abood precedent.

Meanwhile, numerous other federal district and appeals courts were deciding similar cases seeking refunds of past fees, with virtually all siding with the unions.

In a case involving an Ohio teacher, Sarah R. Lee, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, held last year that even if the Supreme Court’s Janus decision might be considered retroactive under certain legal principles, the unions’ good-faith defense would overcome any retroactive remedy.

“The union was authorized by Ohio law and binding Supreme Court precedent to collect agency fees,” the 6th Circuit court held. “Until Janus said otherwise, the union had a legal right to receive and spend fair-share fees collected from nonmembers as long as it complied with state law and the Abood line of cases. It did not demonstrate bad faith when it followed these rules.”

In her appeal in Lee v. Ohio Education Association (No. 20-422), the teacher argues that “the need for this court to decide whether a good-faith defense exists … is especially urgent given the spate of agency-fee refund lawsuits that have been triggered by Janus.”

In a brief filed for its affiliates in the Ohio case, the NEA argues that the Supreme Court itself seems to have contemplated that its Janus decision would not be applied retroactively, which the union suggests “would expose public-employee unions to massive retrospective monetary liability.”

“The court in Janus framed its holding in prospective language,” says the NEA brief, which noted language in the Supreme Court’s opinion that the extraction of fees “cannot be allowed to continue” and that public-employee unions “may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees.”

Besides denying review in the Illinois and Ohio teachers’ cases, the Supreme Court on Jan. 25 declined to hear the Illinois state worker’s followup case in Janus v. AFSCME (No. 19-1104) and two other appeals involving public employees seeking refunds, in Danielson v. Inslee (No. 19-1130), Casanova v. International Association of Machinists (No. 20-20), and Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (No. 20-486).

The justices did not comment on the orders denying review, though the court indicated that Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in any consideration of the Mooney, Janus, or Casanova cases, which all came from the 7th Circuit, her former court.

Alice O’Brien, the general counsel of NEA, noted in a statement that lower courts “have uniformly rejected attempts to hold unions liable for following the law as decided by the Supreme Court.”

“Today’s denials should be taken for what they are—the end of the road for the post-Janus line of litigation.”

Events

Jobs The EdWeek Top School Jobs Virtual Career Fair
Find teaching jobs and other jobs in K-12 education at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Curriculum Webinar
How to Power Your Curriculum With Digital Books
Register for this can’t miss session looking at best practices for utilizing digital books to support their curriculum.
Content provided by OverDrive
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
Embracing Student Engagement: The Pathway to Post-Pandemic Learning
As schools emerge from remote learning, educators are understandably worried about content and skills that students would otherwise have learned under normal circumstances. This raises the very real possibility that children will face endless hours
Content provided by Newsela

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Some Takeaways for Educators in Supreme Court Rulings on Obamacare, Religious Liberties
The justices rejected a challenge to Obamacare on standing grounds while ruling narrowly in a case involving foster care in Philadelphia.
6 min read
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington on April 23, 2021.
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington on April 23, 2021.
Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP
Law & Courts The Opioid Crisis Hit Schools Hard. Now They Want Drug Companies to Pay Up
School districts have collectively spent at least $127 billion on services for students affected by opioid addiction, recent court filings say.
12 min read
An arrangement of Oxycodone pills in New York, pictured on Aug. 29, 2018. A new study shoots down the notion that medical marijuana laws can prevent opioid overdose deaths. Chelsea Shover of Stanford University School of Medicine and colleagues reported the findings Monday, June 10, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The painkiller Oxycodone is among the opioids implicated in a health crisis that has school districts joining with states and municipalities in seeking damages from drug manufacturers.
Mark Lennihan/AP
Law & Courts High Court Asks Biden Administration Views on Harvard Affirmative Action in Admissions
Some had expected U.S. Supreme Court justices to jump at the chance to reconsider the practices in education, but that's delayed for now.
3 min read
In this Nov. 10, 2020 photo the sun rises behind the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court seemed concerned Tuesday, Dec. 1, about the impact of siding with food giants Nestle and Cargill and ending a lawsuit that claims they knowingly bought cocoa beans from farms in Africa that used child slave labor. The court was hearing arguments in the case by phone because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The U.S. Supreme Court is still weighing whether to hear a case challenging Harvard University's race-conscious admissions policies.
Alex Brandon/AP
Law & Courts If Critical Race Theory Is Banned, Are Teachers Protected by the First Amendment?
Bills to rein in how race and other controversial topics are taught have thrust K-12 teachers into a thicket of free speech issues.
10 min read
Image shows a teacher in a classroom.
skynesher/E+