392 F. Supp. 3d 469
M.D. Penn.2019Background
- Molina, a former Lehigh County social services aide, was represented by SEIU Local 668 (PSSU) under a CBA (2014–2018) containing a maintenance-of-membership and dues-deduction scheme that limited resignations to a 15-day window before contract expiration.
- Molina alleges he refused to sign a new irrevocable membership card in early 2018, sent a resignation to PSSU in July 2018, and was fired in August 2018; he later filed a grievance seeking reinstatement and backpay.
- Molina sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming (Count I) PERA and the CBA violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments post-Janus; (Count II) unlawful seizure of dues since Jan. 7, 2017; and (Count III) denial of due process in notice/opportunity to object.
- After suit, PSSU refunded some post-resignation dues and sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the withdrawal request; defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The Court found Molina lacks standing for prospective declaratory/injunctive relief (speculative reinstatement), and that the post-resignation refund mooted his claim for those dues; it granted dismissal of Count I, post-resignation relief in Count II, and claims against Catanese, but ordered further briefing on pre-resignation dues and the due-process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standing for prospective declaratory/injunctive relief | Molina argues ongoing risk of dues collection if reinstated; resignation acceptance is disputed | Defendants say Molina is no longer an employee or member and any reinstatement is speculative | Court: no standing — prospective relief dismissed (speculative future injury) |
| 2. Mootness of post-resignation monetary relief | Molina contends refund is partial and voluntary cessation; interest and nominal damages still owed | Defendants refunded post-resignation dues; thus no live controversy | Court: refund moots post-resignation monetary claim; dismissal granted |
| 3. Official-capacity claim against union president (Catanese) | Molina sought relief against PSSU and its officers to ensure injunctive effect | Defendants: official-capacity suit against individual is redundant with entity suit | Court: claims against Catanese dismissed as redundant |
| 4. Pre-resignation dues & due-process claim | Molina seeks refund of pre-resignation dues and alleges inadequate notice/process | Defendants did not fully brief dismissal of these claims in papers (but raised at argument) | Court: declined to dismiss; ordered additional briefing before ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (public‑sector unions may not collect agency fees from nonconsenting employees)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation doctrine and the stringent standard for mootness)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury that is concrete, particularized, and likely to be redressed)
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982) (defendant's voluntary cessation does not automatically moot a case)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (Article III requires a continuing personal stake throughout litigation)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (parties must maintain a personal stake in the outcome)
- Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold School District, 832 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2016) (standing and mootness standards applied separately to each form of relief)