Plus an update on_ Janus_ in Alaska.
------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to _Union Station_, our weekly newsletter that keeps you abreast of the legislation, national trends, and public debate surrounding public-sector union policy.
** U.S. APPELLATE COURT CONSIDERS CASE OVER REFUND OF PREVIOUSLY PAID AGENCY FEES
------------------------------------------------------------
_Note: This story concerns a lawsuit following up on the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in _Janus v. AFSCME_. The case that is the subject of this story has the same name but is distinct._
On September 20, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments ([link removed]) in _Janus v. AFSCME_, a case involving the refund of agency fees paid to unions before the Supreme Court of the United States disallowed the compulsory collection of such fees in a 2018 ruling.
WHO ARE THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT, AND WHAT IS AT ISSUE?
The plaintiff is Mark Janus, who was also the plaintiff in Janus v. AFSCME ([link removed]) , the similarly named 2018 case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that compelling workers to pay fees to a union is an unconstitutional infringement of their free-speech and associational rights. The defendant is the American Federation of State, Court, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
In the present suit, Janus is seeking a refund of the fees he had been required to pay to AFSCME prior to the high court’s 2018 ruling. He points to _Harris v. Quinn_, a 2014 decision by the high court that struck down an Illinois statute compelling a specific class of home healthcare workers to pay fees to the Service Employees International Union. Janus claims that the high court's ruling in _Harris _suggested the ultimate unconstitutionality of agency fees. He also argues that unions were not acting in good faith when they continued to collect agency fees and, therefore, should be held liable for refunds.
HOW DID THE LOWER COURT RULE IN THIS CASE?
On March 18, Judge Robert Gettleman, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, ruled that public-sector unions cannot be required to refund agency fees paid to them before the Supreme Court issued its decision in _Janus_. Gettleman, who was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton, rejected the arguments put forth by Janus:
“
Defendants' action [sic] were in accord with a constitutionally valid state statute. Nothing presented by plaintiff prevents application of that defense to defendant AFSCME. Defendant AFSCME followed the law and could not reasonably anticipate that the law would change.
”
Gettleman’s decision prompted the appeal that is presently being considered by the appellate panel.
WHAT COMES NEXT?
A decision is pending by the appellate panel, which comprises Judges Diane Wood ([link removed]) , Daniel Manion ([link removed]) , and Ilana Rovner ([link removed]) . Wood, Marion, and Rovner were appointed by Presidents Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, respectively.
------------------------------------------------------------
[link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------
** IN OTHER NEWS
------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this week, we reported ([link removed]) on Alaska’s newly announced opt-in membership policy for public-sector unions representing state employees. We now want to bring you up to speed on how public-sector unions in the state are reacting to the news.
Jake Metcalfe, president of the Alaska State Employees Association, which represents 4,930 members, told KTUU ([link removed]) that the union would seek a temporary restraining order to bar enforcement of the September 26 order. On October 4, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Gregory Miller issued that order. Miller was appointed by Governor Sean Parnell, a Republican.
In response to this development, Metcalfe said ([link removed]) , “Our position is the right position. The governor was trying to take rights away from his own employees and that’s never a good thing.”
Assistant Attorney General Cori Mills said ([link removed]) , “We are disappointed with the ruling, though we will, of course, abide by the court’s order. The Attorney General continues to stand behind his opinion, and the state will continue to pursue the case to get final resolution on this important constitutional question.”
------------------------------------------------------------
** THE BIG PICTURE
------------------------------------------------------------
** _NUMBER OF RELEVANT BILLS BY STATE_
------------------------------------------------------------
We are currently tracking 102 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here ([link removed]) for a complete list of all the bills we're tracking.
------------------------------------------------------------
** RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------
NO LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS HAVE OCCURRED SINCE OUR LAST ISSUE.
------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.
BALLOTPEDIA DEPENDS ON THE SUPPORT OF OUR READERS.
The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.
Click here to support our work ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
** Follow on Twitter (#)
** Friend on Facebook (#)
** Forward to Friend ([link removed])
_Copyright © 2019, All rights reserved._
OUR MAILING ADDRESS IS:
Ballotpedia
8383 Greenway Blvd
Suite 600
Middleton, WI 53562
** unsubscribe from all emails ( [link removed] )
** update subscription preferences ( [link removed] )
** ( [link removed] )
