Hoekman v. Education Minnesota

Background

The two related cases involved public employees who challenged union dues and “fair-share” fees collected under public-sector agency-shop arrangements. The plaintiffs argued that the unions violated their constitutional rights by requiring employees either to join and pay full dues or to remain nonmembers while paying fair-share fees, and by continuing to deduct membership dues after some employees sought to resign. They sought to represent classes of similarly situated employees.

The Hoekman plaintiffs proposed an Agency Shop class, an Agency-Fee subclass, a Reluctant-Uninformed-Union-Member subclass, and a Union Resignation class. The Piekarski plaintiff proposed an Agency Shop class, an Agency-Fee subclass, Reluctant-Union-Member and Reluctant-Uninformed-Union-Member subclasses, and a Membership Resignation class.

The plaintiffs relied on reports from economist Dr. David A. Macpherson. Defendants moved to exclude his testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires expert testimony to be relevant, based on sufficient facts, and produced through reliable methods.

Expert-testimony rulings

The court granted defendants’ motions to exclude Opinions One through Nine and denied the motions as to Opinion Ten.

The excluded opinions included conclusions that proposed classes were clearly defined, that members could be identified through a proposed survey, that there were enough potential class members, that a significant portion of members were reluctant union members, that individual lawsuits would be uneconomical, that employees lacked a free choice before Janus, that class members shared common issues, that the named plaintiffs’ choices were typical, and that certain named plaintiffs were suitable class representatives. The court found that some opinions improperly addressed legal questions reserved for the judge, some were not helpful because they relied on ordinary reasoning or arithmetic, and others lacked a reliable methodology or were speculative.

The court allowed Opinion Ten, concerning whether class counsel’s economic incentives aligned with the proposed class members, because Dr. Macpherson based that opinion on his review of fee arrangements and litigation-credit agreements and on discussions with counsel.

Class-certification rulings

The court denied both motions for class certification.

For the Agency Shop classes and Agency-Fee subclasses, the court found an inherent conflict between members who opposed financially supporting the unions and members who supported the unions or voluntarily chose to join. A refund to some members could harm other members by reducing union finances, potentially leading to higher dues or fewer services. The court also held that the Agency Shop classes included people whose alleged injury was not traceable to the unions because they voluntarily chose between union membership and fair-share-fee status. The court therefore denied certification of those classes and subclasses without reaching every other class-certification requirement.

For the Reluctant-Union-Member and Reluctant-Uninformed-Union-Member subclasses, the court found that the plaintiffs had not shown numerosity and that the proposed classes could not be identified through objective criteria. Determining who was reluctant, why each person joined, what information each person received, and what each person would have done instead would require individualized inquiries. The court also found that the proposed survey lacked a reliable design and could be affected by memory problems, misunderstanding, leading questions, and dishonest answers. Those individualized issues would predominate over common issues and would make a class action an inferior method of resolving the claims. The court denied certification of these subclasses, including Piekarski’s unargued proposed combined subclass.

For Hoekman’s Union Resignation class, the court found that numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were satisfied. The class was objectively identifiable through union and payroll records, and the members shared questions about continued dues deductions after post-Janus resignations. But the court found that predominance and superiority were not satisfied because deciding whether each person validly waived constitutional rights would require examining that person’s membership agreement, the circumstances of joining, possible coercion, and any alleged misrepresentations. The court denied certification of the Union Resignation class.

For Piekarski’s Membership Resignation class, the court found numerosity and commonality, but held that Piekarski was not a typical or adequate representative. Unlike most proposed class members, he signed a contract without a maintenance-of-dues provision, and he sought to resign before Janus even though the proposed class was limited to post-Janus resignation requests. The court also found that individualized questions about each member’s agreement and consent defeated predominance. The court denied certification of the Membership Resignation class.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. It granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to exclude Dr. Macpherson’s expert testimony: Opinions One through Nine were excluded, while Opinion Ten was not excluded. Judge Susan Richard Nelson entered the order on May 27, 2020.