Burns v. Service Employees International Union Local 284
- Donovan Frank
- 0:21-cv-00638
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 12
In Burns v. Service Employees International Union Local 284, Judge Frank dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and the state claims without prejudice.
The ruling affected Pollyanna Burns, Rhonda Tomoson, and Diane Gooding; it ended their federal claims with prejudice and dismissed their Minnesota-law claims without prejudice. It also granted relief to Local 284 and Independent School District 191.
What happened
Burns v. Service Employees International Union Local 284 involved three food-service managers who joined Local 284 and authorized deductions for union dues from their paychecks. They later resigned and asked that the deductions stop, but deductions continued under agreements requiring timely written cancellation.
The plaintiffs argued that the deductions violated the First Amendment and federal civil-rights law. They also brought state-law claims involving money taken from their pay, interference with contracts, and wage deductions. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the federal claims and decline to hear the state claims.
Judge Frank granted the motion to dismiss. He dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, ruling that the plaintiffs voluntarily joined the union and authorized the deductions, and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice because the court declined to continue hearing them after the federal claims were dismissed.
The detailed version
- Burns v. Service Employees International Union Local 284 · No. 0:21-cv-00638
- Donovan Frank
- Aug. 12, 2021
Background
Pollyanna Burns, Rhonda Tomoson, and Diane Gooding were food-service managers employed by Independent School District 191 in a bargaining unit represented by Service Employees International Union Local 284. Each plaintiff joined Local 284 and signed an agreement authorizing the deduction of union dues from her wages. The agreements stated that the authorizations would remain in effect and automatically renew unless revoked in writing during specified periods tied to the agreements' anniversary dates or the termination of the applicable collective-bargaining agreement.
On March 5, 2020, the plaintiffs told Local 284 that they were ending their memberships and asked that the deductions stop. Their notices fell outside the cancellation periods in their agreements. Deductions therefore continued through July 2020 for Burns and Tomoson and through December 2020 for Gooding.
The plaintiffs filed this action on March 5, 2021. Counts One and Two alleged that deductions made before and after their resignations violated the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Counts Three through Seven asserted Minnesota-law claims for conversion, money had and received or unjust enrichment, civil theft, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unlawful wage deductions.
Federal Claims
The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The plaintiffs relied on Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, in which the Supreme Court held that public employers and unions may not require nonmembers to pay union fees without affirmative consent.
The court held that Janus did not apply to these plaintiffs because the complaint showed that they had joined Local 284 and voluntarily authorized dues deductions. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that their choices were coerced, that the agreements were not adequate waivers of First Amendment rights, and that the defendants had to obtain a special waiver after Janus.
The court further held that the plaintiffs' agreements created financial obligations lasting for a set period after resignation when cancellation occurred outside the specified opt-out period. The plaintiffs had not shown that enforcing those contractual provisions violated the First Amendment. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a First Amendment claim.
State-Law Claims and Disposition
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after the federal claims are resolved—over Counts Three through Seven. It stated that those claims were based entirely on Minnesota law and that the usual considerations favored declining jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claims.
Judge Frank granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Counts One and Two were dismissed with prejudice. Counts Three through Seven were dismissed without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.