Fall 2018 Business Law: Case Study on Janus v. AFSCME Decision

This case study analyzes the Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, focusing on the legal issue of whether mandatory union dues for public employees violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The case involves Mark Janus, a child-support specialist, who challenged the deduction of union fees from his paycheck. The study employs the FIRAC method (Facts, Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) to dissect the case. The facts outline Janus's challenge to the fees deducted for being part of a union. The central issue is whether these fees infringe on free speech rights. The rule of law involves the First Amendment and prior rulings like Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The analysis examines how the court applied these rules to the facts, ultimately ruling in favor of Janus, concluding that compelling public employees to pay union dues for collective bargaining violates their First Amendment rights. The study references the court's decision and related legal principles.

Running head: JANUS V. AFSCME: A CASE STUDY
Janus v. AFSCME: A Case Study
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1JANUS V. AFSCME: A CASE STUDY
Table of Contents
Fact..................................................................................................................................................2
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Rule..................................................................................................................................................2
Analysis...........................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................3

2JANUS V. AFSCME: A CASE STUDY
Fact
Mark Janus, a child-support specialist working under the Illinois Department of
Healthcare and Family Services filed a suit for highlighting the violation of the First
Amendment. He was charged $45 every month from his paycheck for going to the local branch
of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which is the union that
represents Janus. He argued that such deduction for being a part of a collective bargaining
violates the First Amendment Rights as it is curbing his right to free speech by being a part of an
union that discuss on issues like salaries, benefits, pensions for the government employees
(Weiss) .
Issue
The issue of this case is to determine whether the fees deducted for being a part of a
union is violating the First Amendment (Ring et al.).
Rule
Under the US Labour Law, a worker who is being represented by a union may prefer not
to be a part of it or not to pay the membership fee. However, the union is under the obligation to
represent every employee equally in case of a collective bargaining situation. For the last 40
years, workers have been forced to pay the fees for being covered by collective bargaining
("Opinion Analysis: Court Strikes Down Public-Sector Union Fees (Updated) - Scotusblog"). On
the other hand, the Supreme Court had delivered a contrary judgment in the Abood v. Detroit
Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) where it said that the dues that are collected from the

3JANUS V. AFSCME: A CASE STUDY
workers to cover their collective bargaining procedures was for the union’s use to boost their
activities regarding contract administration, grievance administration and collective bargaining.
The court had held that it did not violate the First Amendment Rights guaranteed by the US
Constitution.
While, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot
make laws for restricting religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, right to assemble
peacefully and the right to demand remedy for grievances.
Analysis
The Court ruled against the defendant party, AFSCME and held that the ‘agency-shop’
agreement violates the freedom of free speech of the non-members of the union as they are
compelled to pay a fee to be covered under collective bargaining, as this might stop them from
taking the help of the union for getting redressal of their grievances. However, the dissenting
judgment on the case had held that the Abood decision had maintained a balance between the
government entities and the First Amendment rights of the public employees for the past 40
years. On this matter, a teacher’s union held that if the court removed the policy of incurring fees
from the non-members, the union will be permanently crippled, for they would lose membership
and revenue which would affect the agenda of affecting adverse government policies for the
benefit of the workers .

4JANUS V. AFSCME: A CASE STUDY
Conclusion
The US Supreme Court held that the government employees are free from paying union
dues, even for being covered by collective bargaining procedures.
References
"Opinion Analysis: Court Strikes Down Public-Sector Union Fees (Updated) - Scotusblog".
Scotusblog, 2018, http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-strikes-down-
public-sector-union-fees/. Accessed 6 Dec 2018.
"Unpacking The Janus Decision". Forbes.Com, 2018,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankmiller/2018/06/27/unpacking-the-janus-decision/
#697b896c41a4. Accessed 6 Dec 2018.
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977)
Ring, Edward et al. "The Dust Has Cleared, So It’S Time To Analyze Janus Based On Reality
Rather Than Rhetoric | California Policy Center". California Policy Center, 2018,
https://californiapolicycenter.org/the-dust-has-cleared-so-its-time-to-analyze-janus-based-on-
reality-rather-than-rhetoric/. Accessed 6 Dec 2018.
Weiss, Debra. "Supreme Court Rules Mandatory Union Dues Violate Free Speech Rights Of
Public Employees". ABA Journal, 2018,
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_rules_mandatory_union_dues_violate_f
ree_speech_rights_of_publ. Accessed 6 Dec 2018.