Judge dismisses federal lawsuit over teacher union leaves

Listen to this article

Three individuals residing in the Anoka-Hennepin School District, represented by Upper Midwest Law Center, filed a lawsuit in federal court in December 2020, aiming to halt teacher union business leave subsidies for political activities by the union. The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota recently granted summary judgment for the school district, finding that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing.

In a statement sent Wednesday to Minnesota Lawyer, the Upper Midwest Law Center said it plans to appeal the decision to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Independent School District 11 has a collective bargaining agreement with Anoka-Hennepin Education Minnesota, which is the local affiliate of a trade union that represents Minnesota educators. Under the collective bargaining agreement, 3,000 teachers who work for the district can collectively use up to 100 days of paid leave each school year to do union business. In exchange for union leave time, Anoka-Hennepin Education Minnesota must reimburse the school district for the cost of substitute teachers.

The plaintiffs — who are taxpayers within the school district, asserted that the collective bargaining agreement did not fully reimburse the district for teacher pay, alleging that the union was being provided with illegal support. While the union reimburses the hiring cost for substitute teachers, it does not reimburse the pro rata cost of salaries and benefits for teachers on leave, which is higher.

Plaintiffs argued that the teachers were engaged in political and campaign advocacy during union leave, which plaintiffs asserted violated their free speech rights under the federal and state constitutions as well as Minnesota’s Public Employer Labor Relations Act.

In June 2021, the U.S. District Court dismissed the case, determining that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. “Plaintiffs do not claim that they pay taxes directly to the School District; they allege that they paid taxes to the State and to Anoka County, and that Anoka County funds some of the School District’s budget,” the court wrote. It concluded that extending municipal taxpayer standing would exceed the narrow limits set by precedent.

On appeal, the residents asked the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant a preliminary judgment. In August 2022, the 8th Circuit revived the lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs did have standing to pursue the case. While it did not grant the requested injunction, it did remand the case back to the district court to address the preliminary injunction factors.

Again, the court dismissed the case for lack of Article III standing. While the court acknowledged that the plaintiffs identified what school district activity they challenged and established that most of them were municipal taxpayers in the district, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that municipal taxpayer revenues were spent on the contested activity.

First, the court contested that there was inadequate reimbursement for the contested activity. “Plaintiffs’ contention that expenses related to the union leave policy exceeded reimbursements relies on a table, attorney-created, that suggests a financial shortfall,” the court said. “The table itself relies on unclear data and unfounded assumptions, and lists no actual expenses.”

“Plaintiffs’ argument here is of the same kind made in households every day — that wages should be higher and expenses lower or that government spending should be more, less, or allocated differently. Without more, merely disagreeing with how the government determines rates or prices for its goods or services, including reimbursements, does not grant standing under Article III,” the court added.

The court also determined that there was no traceable use of municipal tax dollars, citing the money the district allocated toward salaries and benefits for K-12 and substitute teachers compared with what money was provided by the state, the federal government, and local tax levies. It concluded that the primary financial support for the school district came not from municipal taxes, but from state and non-local sources. “The funds were pooled into a general, non-segregated fund,” the court wrote. “Tax dollars are not specifically earmarked for distinct expenditures, making it impossible to attribute any part of the spending directly to a particular source of income, such as municipal tax revenues.”

“We at the Upper Midwest Law Center are disappointed by the Court’s ruling because we believe the Court sidestepped the Eighth Circuit’s test for municipal-taxpayer standing,” the center said in a statement Wednesday. “The Eighth Circuit already reversed the Court’s prior Rule 12 dismissal based on municipal-taxpayer standing because the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded facts supporting standing. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs then proved, through affidavits and depositions, the exact facts alleged in the Complaint at summary judgment. Proving the allegations in the Complaint, where the allegations are sufficient for standing, satisfies a plaintiff’s evidentiary burden at summary judgment. Yet the Court added to that burden.

“Under the defendants’ collective bargaining agreement, the plaintiffs’ municipal taxpayer dollars are used to subsidize public-sector union political activity, which violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. We at the Upper Midwest Law Center stand against such compelled subsidies. So despite this setback, the plaintiffs will appeal the decision, including the denial of their motion for summary judgment, to the Eighth Circuit. We look forward to prevailing on appeal, and we remain steadfast in our commitment to defending constitutional rights.”