Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5

Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5
Case number: 0:19-cv-02529
Status: Terminated/Settled
Important dates
Filed: September 16, 2019 District court decision: January 24, 2020 Appeals court decision:
District court outcome
A settlement agreement was reached in this lawsuit

This case is one of over a hundred public-sector union lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. These pages were updated through February 2023 and may not reflect subsequent case developments. For more information about Ballotpedia's coverage of public-sector union policy in the United States, click here. Contact our team to suggest an update.

Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5 was dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on January 24, 2020. The plaintiff filed an initial complaint stating she was not informed of her right to refuse union membership and that the union disregarded her attempts to withdraw membership and exercise her right under Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiff requested a refund of all union dues collected since April 2019, costs, and attorney fees. A settlement was reached in this case regarding all claims.

HIGHLIGHTS

The parties to the suit: The plaintiff was Susan Halloran. The defendants were AFSCME Council 5 and Eric Davis.

The issue: Does signing a union membership card constitute a waiver of First Amendment rights without additional disclaimer information from the union?

The presiding judge(s): Judge Susan Richard Nelson presided over the district court proceedings. Judge Nelson was appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

The outcome: A settlement agreement was reached in this lawsuit.

Procedural history

The plaintiff was Susan Halloran. She was represented by counsel from the Liberty Justice Center, Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, and the Upper Midwest Law Center. The defendants were AFSCME Council 5 and Eric Davis. They were represented by Joshua Hegarty and counsel from Gregg M. Corwin And Associate and Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC. Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit.

• September 16, 2019: The plaintiffs in Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5 first filed their lawsuit on September 16, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiff filed an initial complaint stating she was not informed of her right to refuse union membership and that the union disregarded her attempts to withdraw membership and exercise her right under Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiff requested a refund of all union dues collected since April 2019, costs, and attorney fees. A settlement was reached in this case regarding all claims.

• January 24, 2020: The lawsuit was dismissed following a joint stipulation to dismiss with prejudice from the plaintiff and defendants. A settlement was reached in this lawsuit.

For a list of available case documents, click here.

Decision

A settlement was reached in this lawsuit.

Legal context

Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

See also: Janus v. AFSCME

On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), ruling that public-sector unions cannot compel non-member employees to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union activities.

This decision overturned precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977. In Abood, the high court held that it was not a violation of employees' free-speech and associational rights to require them to pay fees to support union activities from which they benefited (e.g., collective bargaining, contract administration, etc.). These fees were commonly referred to as agency fees or fair-share fees.

Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion for the court majority in Janus, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Alito wrote, "Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled."

Related litigation

To view a complete list of the public-sector labor lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked between 2019 and 2023, click here.

---

Number of federal lawsuits by circuit

Between 2019 and 2023, Ballotpedia tracked 191 federal lawsuits related to public-sector labor laws. The chart below depicts the number of suits per federal judicial circuit (i.e., the jurisdictions in which the suits originated).