Post-Janus Paycheck Deduction for Union Dues Does Not Violate First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that deductions from the paychecks of nonconsenting public-sector employees who did not join a union were unconstitutional.  That holding continues to be tested in regions across the country.  This week we look at Todd v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 5,  in which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,  reviewed the constitutionality of Union dues deductions where a member employee has withdrawn previously provided consent.

Marcus Todd, an employee of the State of Minnesota, joined The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) in 2014 and authorized the deduction of dues from his paycheck. In 2018, shortly before the Janus ruling, the Union revised the membership and deduction authorization card using Todd’s electronic signature.

In 2020 Todd resigned from the Union and demanded the Union discontinue deductions. The Union refused, indicating Todd could only resign and discontinue deductions during the “opt-out” period. The Union continued deductions until the onset of the annual opt-out period.

Todd sued the union under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming the union’s collection of dues from his paycheck had deprived him of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by deducting dues without his clear waiver of those rights.  He also sued for the union subsequently “forging” his signature on the revised membership card, refusing to terminate his membership outside of the opt-out period and continuing with deductions despite his objections.

The Eighth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision to dismiss Todd’s suit, for failure to state claim. It found the union’s collection of dues based on Todd’s authorization and its continued collection outside the opt-out period were “based on a private agreement between Todd and the union, not pursuant to any state statute.” Further, the applicable statute on which the state employer relied in making deductions, prohibited the deductions without signed authorizations, which the union had provided. The court found that the union using a “forged” signature may have been fraudulent, but as that conduct is contrary to the statutory language upon which the employer relied, it did not involve action of the state.

While the court declined to find state actions where a private agreement between the union and the employee governed the transaction, public employers should remain attentive to state law requirements for authorized payroll deductions of union dues. If you have questions about your organization’s obligations in a unionized environment, call Wiley Reber Law for labor advice that works.