Four employees at the University of Puerto Rico sued the university president and the university union after the union continued to deduct dues from their paychecks despite their requests to resign and stop payments. Following the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which held that mandatory union dues for public sector employees violate the First Amendment, the employees demanded an end to deductions. The union and university eventually stopped the deductions and the district court ordered the union to reimburse the employees for the amounts taken after their resignation requests. However, the district court denied the employees' request for a declaratory judgment stating that the deductions were unconstitutional, reasoning that the failure to process resignations promptly was not itself a constitutional violation. The employees appealed, seeking only a declaratory judgment that the past and future deductions were unconstitutional, rather than appealing the denial of damages or interest.
Circuit Judge Aframe wrote that the appeal was dismissed because the employees sought only declaratory relief, which became moot once the union and university stopped the deductions and agreed to reimburse the employees. The court explained that a backward-looking declaration that past conduct was unconstitutional is merely advisory and does not resolve a live controversy. Regarding the request for prospective relief, the court applied the voluntary cessation doctrine, which prevents defendants from evading review by stopping illegal conduct only to resume it later. However, the court found that the doctrine did not apply here because the union and university had admitted their past conduct was improper, acknowledged that Janus prohibited future deductions, and implemented new policies to ensure affirmative consent for dues. The court noted that the mere presence of a collective bargaining agreement clause allowing deductions did not create a reasonable expectation that the defendants would resume the practice, especially given their explicit admissions of error and policy changes.
The decision leaves the district court's order requiring reimbursement of past dues in place but prevents the issuance of a declaratory judgment on the merits of the First Amendment claim. It clarifies that when a defendant admits error and changes conduct to comply with the law, a claim for prospective declaratory relief is likely moot. The ruling does not resolve whether a delay in processing a resignation notice constitutes a constitutional violation, as the employees waived that argument on appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download