991 F.3d 724
7th Cir.2021Background
- Susan Bennett, a School District custodian, voluntarily joined AFSCME and signed dues‑deduction/membership authorizations (most recently in 2017) that auto‑renewed annually and included a limited annual revocation window.
- The Supreme Court decided Janus v. AFSCME in June 2018, holding that public‑sector employers cannot require nonmembers to subsidize unions without affirmative consent.
- After Janus Bennett attempted to resign and stop dues; the Union accepted her resignation but would not permit revocation of dues outside the contractual revocation window; the School District continued deductions until the next window in August 2019.
- Bennett sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (Count I) unconstitutional deduction of dues without affirmative consent and (Count II) that Illinois’s exclusive‑representation scheme violates her First Amendment rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Union, School District, and state defendants; Bennett appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Janus does not invalidate preexisting voluntary membership dues agreements and that exclusive representation remains constitutional under controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Janus’s affirmative‑consent/waiver rule invalidates pre‑Janus union membership dues authorizations and forbids continued paycheck deductions | Bennett: Janus requires a constitutional waiver before any union‑related deduction; her prior authorizations do not satisfy Janus’s waiver test | Union/School Dist.: Bennett voluntarily contracted to pay dues; Janus protects nonmembers but does not let members renege on voluntary contracts | Court: Janus does not apply to voluntarily executed membership/dues contracts; enforcement of those contracts does not violate the First Amendment |
| Whether Illinois’s exclusive‑representation scheme (IELRA) violates the First Amendment by forcing association or compelled speech | Bennett: Exclusive representation compels association and endorsement of union speech; fails strict scrutiny | Defendants: Knight and its progeny permit exclusive representation; employees remain free not to join or financially support the union | Court: Exclusive representation is constitutional under Knight and Hill; Janus did not overrule that precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., 138 S. Ct. 2448 (U.S. 2018) (held states may not require nonmembers to subsidize public‑sector unions; affirmative consent required for nonmembers)
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (U.S. 1991) (First Amendment does not permit reneging on generally applicable contracts)
- Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1984) (exclusive bargaining representation does not violate First Amendment rights)
- Hill v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 850 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2017) (applying Knight to uphold Illinois exclusive‑representation scheme)
- Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020) (post‑Janus: waiver rule does not void pre‑Janus voluntary membership agreements)
- Reisman v. Associated Facs. of Univ. of Me., 939 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 2019) (post‑Janus: exclusive representation constitutional)
- Bierman v. Dayton, 900 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2018) (post‑Janus: exclusive representation constitutional)