Cross-posted from the archived Media Trackers Ohio site.
A pending class-action suit against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and several of its affiliates was treated by reporters as a GOP stunt when filed last year, and has since gone overlooked. The plaintiffs, teachers forced to pay “fair share” union dues despite opting out of union membership, seek in part to block OEA from taking non-member money for non-bargaining activity.
Thaxton et al v. OEA, filed August 4, 2011 in the U.S. District Court in Columbus, alleges that from 2009-2012 OEA and affiliates took fair share fees for impermissible purposes and failed to provide non-members with adequate financial reports. An OEA motion to dismiss the case has not been ruled on.
A memorandum filed with OEA’s motion to dismiss indicates OEA and its affiliates decided to stop charging non-members for “internal organizing, including expansion of existing bargaining units, maintenance of existing membership and recognition rights, and defense against challenges from other unions” after the lawsuit was filed.
According to the court filing, OEA and its affiliates notified non-members of the change in September 2011. Where applicable, the notices included refunds ranging from 37 cents to $3.74 for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years.
This policy change does not mark the first time in recent history OEA has resolved complaints only after a class-action suit was filed. In 2010, the union settled a years-long benefits dispute with retirees at a cost of $3.75 million.
For a layman’s overview of recent developments in Thaxton et al v. OEA, Media Trackers contacted the Virginia-based National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW), which is providing legal support to the plaintiffs.
NRTW staff attorney Nathan McGrath pointed out that the case involves two related but separate classes. The Ohio educators forced to pay OEA dues as a condition of employment are seeking legal remedy based on precedents in cases Hudson v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 and Lehnert v. Farris Faculty Association.
By law, unions in forced-unionism states like Ohio may not take fair share fees for purposes other than collective bargaining. Unions are required to provide clear, detailed, independently audited reports to justify the fees taken from nonmembers.
“Simply put, the first class is challenging the OEAs calculation of the fair share fee percentage contained in the OEAs Hudson Notice and seized from nonmembers,” McGrath explained, “while the second class cannot even get to the point of reviewing the district unions’ fair share fee calculations because the district unions have provided inadequate Hudson Notices and no audit of the calculations.”
Asked about the anticipated timeline for the case, McGrath wrote, “Currently, discovery on the merits of the case is moving forward per the court ordered discovery schedule. Foundation attorneys are pouring through thousands of pages of union documents. Both sides are also waiting for the district judge to rule on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”
Even if the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio does not side with OEA and dismiss the suit, discovery is expected to continue for months.
“Trial will not be scheduled until late 2013,” McGrath wrote.