19/10/22, 22:05 Janus v. Am. Fed'n.

of State | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis

Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

LAW SCHOOL CASE BRIEF

Janus v. Am. Fed'n. of

State - 942 F.3d 352 (7th
Cir. 2019)
RULE:
In Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), the Supreme Court of
the United States held that agency-shop arrangements that require
nonmembers to pay fair-share fees and thereby subsidize private speech on
matters of substantial public concern, are inconsistent with the First
Amendment rights of objectors, no matter what interest the state identifies
in its authorizing legislation.

FACTS:
FEEDBACK
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-janus-v-am-fed-n-of-state#:~:text=Janus asserted that the state's,on employees' First Am… 1/6
19/10/22, 22:05 Janus v. Am. Fed'n. of State | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis

Plaintiff Mark Janus was formerly a child-support specialist employed by the

Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Defendant American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ("AFSCME"), Council
31, was designated as the exclusive representative of Janus' employee unit.
Janus exercised his right not to join the union. He also objected to the
withholding of $44.58 from his paycheck each month to compensate
AFSCME for representing the employee unit in collective bargaining,
grievance processing, and other employment-related functions. Later, the
then-governor of Illinois filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging
the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act ("IPLRA"), which, under 5 ILCS §
315/6, provided that a union designated as the exclusive representative of
an employee unit was "responsible for representing the interests of all
public employees in the unit," whether union members or not, and
permitted assessment of fair-share fees. The district court dismissed the
governor for lack of standing, but at the same time it permitted Janus (and
some others) to intervene as plaintiffs. Janus asserted that the state's
compulsory fair-share scheme violated the First Amendment. Ultimately, the
Supreme Court of the United States reversed its long-standing precedent to
the contrary and ruled that compulsory fair-share or agency fee
arrangements impermissibly infringed on employees' First Amendment
rights. With the case back before the district court, the remaining issue to be
decided was whether Janus was entitled to damages, under 42 U.S.C.S.
§ 1983, in the amount of the fair-share fees he had paid prior to the
Supreme Court's decision. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, and the district court granted AFSCME's motion and denied
Janus' motion, holding that Janus was not entitled to a refund of some or
all of that money. Janus appealed.

ISSUE:
FEEDBACK
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-janus-v-am-fed-n-of-state#:~:text=Janus asserted that the state's,on employees' First Am… 2/6
19/10/22, 22:05 Janus v. Am. Fed'n. of State | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis

Was Janus, a non-union employee who paid fair-share union fees under
protest, entitled to a refund of some or all of that money?

ANSWER:
No.

CONCLUSION:
The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court ruled,
in general, that after the Supreme Court reversed its prior position and held
that compulsory fair-share or agency fee arrangements impermissibly
infringed on employees' First Amendment rights, an employee who paid
fair-share fees under protest was not entitled to a refund of some or all of
that money. With respect to Janus, the court ruled, he was not entitled to a
refund because AFSCME, acting as a private party who acted under color of
state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, was entitled to a good faith
defense to liability. AFSCME established this defense, the court
continued, because at the time it collected the fees, AFSCME had a legal
right to receive and spend fair-share fees collected from nonmembers as
long as it complied with state law and the applicable line of caselaw and it
did not demonstrate bad faith when it followed those rules.

ACCESS THE FULL TEXT CASE

FEEDBACK
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-janus-v-am-fed-n-of-state#:~:text=Janus asserted that the state's,on employees' First Am… 3/6
19/10/22, 22:05 Janus v. Am. Fed'n. of State | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis

Essential Class
Preparation Skills
How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
How to Brief a Case
Don't Miss Important Points of Law with
BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class
Resources
CivPro
Contracts
Constitutional Law
Corporations /Business Organizations
Criminal Law
FEEDBACK
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-janus-v-am-fed-n-of-state#:~:text=Janus asserted that the state's,on employees' First Am… 4/6
19/10/22, 22:05 Janus v. Am. Fed'n. of State | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis

Criminal Procedure/Investigation
Evidence
Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
Property
Secured Transactions
Torts
Trusts & Estates

FEEDBACK
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-janus-v-am-fed-n-of-state#:~:text=Janus asserted that the state's,on employees' First Am… 5/6
19/10/22, 22:05 Janus v. Am. Fed'n. of State | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis

Experience
Start your complimentary
Lexis+
7-day trial today.
FREE TRIAL

FEEDBACK
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-janus-v-am-fed-n-of-state#:~:text=Janus asserted that the state's,on employees' First Am… 6/6