Mark Janus’ Attempt to Recover Fair Share Fees Paid To Union

Seventh Circuit Denies Mark Janus’ Attempt to Recover Fair Share Fees Paid To Union That Represented Him

To Recap:

You will likely recall that on June 27, 2018, Mark Janus persuaded the United States Supreme Court to overturn nearly 40-years of precedent and find that public-sector unions could no longer collect fair-share fees from nonmember, public-sector employees.

But that was not the end of Mr. Janus’ case. The case then ended up back where it originated, in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to sort out whether Mr. Janus could force the Union, AFSCME Council 31, to give back his retroactive fair share fees, even though the Union was obliged to, and did in fact, represent him during that period of time.

In March of this year, the Northern District of Illinois found, in relevant part, that the Union was entitled to what is called a “good faith defense” – a defense recognized by some Circuits for potential use by private parties (like Unions) sued under Section 1983, which is generally aimed at state actors. Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43152 (N.D. Ill. March 18, 2019).

Basically, the Union’s good faith reliance on the law at the time prevented Mr. Janus from clawing back his fair share fees. The Union’s collection of fair share fees from nonmembers like Mr. Janus was unquestionably legal at the time both under State law as well as the Supreme Court’s own precedent.

Not to be deterred, Mr. Janus appealed (again) to the Seventh Circuit.

Now That You Are Up To Speed:

On November 5, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the Union was entitled to the good faith defense and that, as a result, Mr. Janus was not entitled to recoup any fair share fees from the Union.

In this decision, the Seventh Circuit necessarily reviewed the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus and highlighted those aspects of the decision relevant to Mr. Janus’ attempt to reclaim his fair share fees: namely, that the Supreme Court was concerned with the use(s) to which the Union put the fair share fees; not the mere collection of money “pursuant to an employment contract.” The Seventh Circuit also emphasized that the Supreme Court had not found “that Mr. Janus has an unqualified constitutional right to accept the benefits of union representation without paying.” Just as the lower court did, the Seventh Circuit found that a good faith defense was available to private parties sued in such cases and, more to the point, that the Union was entitled to the good faith defense under these facts.

The Majority Opinion, written by Chief Judge Wood, emphasized that Mr. Janus may not have wanted it, but he benefited from the Union’s representation of him. The court noted that there was “an exchange of money for services.”

Thus, the Seventh Circuit has unanimously found the Union’s entitlement to the good faith defense in this case, as well as in a related case, decided by the Seventh Circuit on the same day: Mooney v. Illinois Education Association. The Seventh Circuit is one of the first circuit courts to apply the good faith defense in this context since the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus.

Will Janus Walk Away With Empty Pockets?

Stay tuned. Mr. Janus has 90 days to ask the Supreme Court of the United States to, once again, take the case on appeal from the Seventh Circuit.

People

Related Practices