Hoekman v. Education Minnesota

Background

The two related cases concerned union fees deducted from public employees’ wages before and after the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, which held that public-sector employees could not be required to pay fair-share fees to a union without agreeing to do so. The plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and state tort law.

In the Hoekman matter, Linda Hoekman, Mary Dee Buros, and Paul Hanson sued Education Minnesota and affiliated organizations. Hoekman and Hanson had paid fair-share fees before Janus; Buros had paid union membership dues and later resigned from the union. In the Piekarski matter, Thomas P. Piekarski sued AFSCME Council No. 5. Piekarski sought refunds related to his attempted change from full membership dues to fair-share fees, as well as fees deducted after Janus. The court had previously denied class certification, so only the plaintiffs’ individual claims remained.

**Rulings on Pre-Janus Fair-Share Fees**

The court granted summary judgment to the Education Minnesota Defendants on Hoekman’s and Hanson’s claims for refunds of pre-Janus fair-share fees. It held that private parties who acted in good-faith reliance on a state statute and Supreme Court precedent treating that statute as constitutional could assert an affirmative defense to § 1983 liability. Minnesota’s Public Employment Labor Relations Act permitted the fees, and the court found no evidence that the defendants acted maliciously, knew the law was unconstitutional, or otherwise acted in bad faith.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that their claims were for restitution rather than damages. It characterized the claims as legal claims for compensatory damages based on the alleged constitutional injury, not as a demand to recover specific property. The court further held that even assuming Janus applied retroactively, the defendants’ collection of fees authorized by Minnesota law did not constitute conversion under Minnesota law because the conduct was not without lawful justification.

Rulings on the Compulsory Portion of Membership Dues

The court granted summary judgment to the Education Minnesota Defendants and AFSCME Defendants on Buros’s and Piekarski’s claims for refunds of the portion of their pre-Janus membership dues equal to fair-share fees. The court distinguished union members, who voluntarily joined and received membership benefits, from nonmembers, whose wages could not be charged without affirmative consent under Janus. It held that Janus did not support refunds of dues that Buros and Piekarski voluntarily agreed to pay. The court also stated that, even if those claims were otherwise viable, the defendants’ good-faith defense would apply.

The court separately granted summary judgment to the AFSCME Defendants on Piekarski’s state-law conversion claim concerning his authorized membership-dues deductions. Piekarski had not explained how deductions he authorized amounted to conversion, and his briefing did not address the substance of that claim.

Buros’s Post-Resignation Dues

The court granted summary judgment to the Education Minnesota Defendants on Buros’s claim for dues deducted between her August 3, 2018 resignation and October 1, 2018. It held that her dues authorization was supported by consideration because she received union membership rights and benefits in exchange for agreeing to pay dues. The authorization expressly remained effective irrespective of her membership until the applicable revocation period.

The court also held that Janus did not invalidate that agreement or require an immediate right to revoke it. It rejected Buros’s reliance on NLRB v. Penn Cork & Closures, Inc. because that case involved a different federal labor-law issue. The court further found that Buros had cited no supporting authority for her argument that the seven-day annual revocation period was unenforceable.

Piekarski’s Additional Claims

The court held that Piekarski’s claims for a refund of amounts deducted after his attempted resignation and after Janus were moot. AFSCME Council 5 had sent him an unconditional check refunding those fees, with interest, and there was no evidence that the refund required him to waive his claims. The court concluded that the refund provided the monetary relief he sought. Because class certification had been denied, he could not obtain class-wide relief, and a request for attorneys’ fees and costs alone could not keep the dispute alive.

Prospective Relief and Final Disposition

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all plaintiffs’ requests for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. The defendants had stopped deducting fair-share fees and stated that the plaintiffs would not be required to pay future union fees unless they voluntarily rejoined their unions. The court therefore found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek relief concerning future deductions.

The court denied the Hoekman Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted the Education Minnesota Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment in Case No. 18-cv-01686. It denied Piekarski’s motion for summary judgment and granted the AFSCME Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment in Case No. 18-cv-02384. Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.