367 F. Supp. 3d 996
D. Alaska2019Background
- Alaska's PERA authorized exclusive union representation for public employee bargaining units and allowed collective bargaining agreements to require "fair-share" fees from nonmembers to cover representation costs; religious objectors could be required to pay fees that unions would donate to charity.
- Plaintiffs (public school employees, some nonmembers and some members) sued after Janus v. AFSCME, seeking: (1) injunctive relief to stop future collection of fees, (2) refunds of fair-share fees collected pre-Janus, (3) partial refunds of membership dues for members who joined to avoid fees, and (4) a declaration that Alaska's exclusive representation system is unlawful plus treble damages under antitrust law.
- After Janus, NEA-Alaska and affiliates ceased collecting fair-share fees and refunded any prepaid post-Janus amounts; plaintiffs conceded there was no live controversy over future fee collection.
- Defendants (unions and a school district) moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of jurisdiction for prospective claims, failure to state § 1983 and state-law claims, and defenses including reliance on then-valid state statute and Supreme Court precedent.
- The court addressed: permissibility of retrospective § 1983 damages for pre-Janus collections; availability of a good-faith defense for private parties under § 1983; members’ claims for dues refunds; state-law tort claims for fee collection; and McCollum’s challenge to exclusive representation (constitutional and antitrust theories).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prospective injunctive relief to stop future collection of fair-share fees | Sought injunction against future fee collection | Defendants ceased collections after Janus; no live controversy | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (no actual controversy) |
| Retrospective § 1983 damages for pre-Janus fair-share fee collection | Janus should be applied retroactively; fees collected pre-Janus violated First Amendment | Defendants relied on PERA and controlling Abood precedent; assert a good-faith defense shielding private actors from § 1983 liability | Dismissed: good-faith defense available to private defendants and applies as matter of law; no § 1983 liability for pre-Janus collections |
| Refunds to union members (dues exceeding fair-share amount) | Members claim they joined only to avoid agency fees and seek partial refunds | Membership was voluntary (benefits and voting rights); contractual obligations enforceable; good-faith defense applies | Dismissed: members’ voluntary choice and enforceable contract; good-faith defense bars recovery |
| State common-law tort claims (conversion, trespass, unjust enrichment) for pre-Janus collections | Statute unconstitutional post-Janus; therefore tort liability should lie | PERA expressly authorized collections; statutory scheme displaced common law; conduct authorized by state law cannot give rise to tort liability | Dismissed: no common-law liability for conduct authorized by state statute in this context |
| Challenge to exclusive representative bargaining (First Amendment and antitrust) | McCollum: exclusive representation infringes associational rights; alternatively, antitrust challenge to state-authorized collective bargaining | Defendants: Supreme Court precedent allows exclusive representation; state-action immunity, labor exemptions, and Noerr-Pennington bar antitrust claims | Dismissed: constitutional challenge foreclosed by precedent; antitrust claim barred by state-action immunity, labor exemption, and Noerr-Pennington doctrines |
Key Cases Cited
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (upheld public-sector agency fees for collective bargaining costs under then-prevailing law)
- Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (overruled Abood; holding compulsory agency fees violate the First Amendment)
- Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Transportation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) (addressed retroactivity of judicial decisions)
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992) (private defendants not entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 but left open equitable good-faith defenses)
- Clement v. City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (applied a good-faith defense for a private entity in § 1983 context)
- Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984) (exclusive representative bargaining does not violate speech or associational rights)
- Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) (state-action immunity from federal antitrust law)