390 F. Supp. 3d 592
M.D. Penn.2019Background
- Four Pennsylvania public school teachers sued their local unions and the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's "fair share" fee statute and corresponding CBA provisions as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Litigation was stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which overruled Abood and held that public-sector agency fees cannot be extracted from nonconsenting employees.
- After Janus, the Union Defendants ceased collecting fair-share fees from the plaintiffs, refunded post‑Janus deductions, paid $100 nominal damages to each plaintiff, and obtained school-district declarations or memoranda removing or treating fee provisions as unenforceable.
- Plaintiffs continued to seek a declaratory judgment that Pennsylvania’s statute and their CBAs’ fair-share clauses were unconstitutional and injunctive relief expunging such provisions; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as moot.
- The court considered whether the defendants’ voluntary cessation and institutional actions post-Janus satisfied the stringent Friends of the Earth standard (i.e., made it "absolutely clear" the wrongful behavior could not reasonably recur).
- The court concluded plaintiffs’ claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief were moot given the unions’ and employers’ undisputed post-Janus actions and assurances, and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs' requests for declaratory and injunctive relief remain justiciable after Janus | Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Pennsylvania's statute and CBA provisions are unconstitutional and an injunction removing fee clauses; post‑Janus cessation does not moot the need for a judicial declaration | Defendants argue post‑Janus cessation, refunds, MOU/removals, and government guidance make recurrence unlikely, so claims are moot | Moot: court dismissed claims for declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether defendants’ voluntary cessation meets the burden to show wrongful conduct won’t recur | Plaintiffs contend defendants historically disregarded precedent and that some CBAs elsewhere still contain fee language, so cessation is insufficient | Defendants point to immediate cessation, refunds, MOUs, superintendent declarations, and state AG/L&I guidance as convincing evidence recurrence is unlikely | Court found defendants met the heavy Friends of the Earth burden; voluntary cessation established mootness |
| Relevance of post‑Janus CBAs in other districts to this case | Plaintiffs rely on other Pennsylvania CBAs with fee language to show risk of recurrence | Defendants note those CBAs involve different employers/locals not party here and offer mere speculation | Court deemed out‑of‑district CBAs irrelevant and speculative; did not defeat mootness |
| Applicability of Obergefell/Citizens United analogies | Plaintiffs analogize to post‑Supreme Court decisions where lower courts issued declarations despite compliance | Defendants argue those cases involved self‑executing statutes or nonconceded government defenses, unlike Pennsylvania’s non‑self‑executing deduction scheme and defendants’ concessions here | Court found analogies inapposite and distinguished those precedents; mootness stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (upheld public‑sector agency fees prior to being overruled)
- Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (overruled Abood; held public‑sector agency fees unconstitutional)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (articulated stringent standard for mootness after voluntary cessation)
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982) (voluntary cessation does not automatically moot a case because defendant could resume challenged conduct)
- Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1977) (Rule 12(b)(1) factual jurisdictional inquiry may consider evidence outside the pleadings)