|
DuPuis v. AFSCME |
For media inquiries, please contact:
Lisa Gates, vice president of communications
(614) 224-3255 or Lisa@BuckeyeInstitute.org
Background on the Case
Key Questions in the Case: Can a union continue to collect dues for the duration of the union contract from people who have quit the union and are no longer members? Can a union place limitations on when and how a member may leave the union and impose a penalty for leaving?
On June 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, holding that public employees cannot be forced to support political speech or other activities without their affirmative consent. This opinion reinforced the law regarding public employees’ rights to avoid compelled payments to the unions chosen to represent them.
Despite the historic court decision, many government unions have refused to recognize workers’ Janus rights and have continued to take money from public employees’ paychecks—employees whom the unions themselves have acknowledged have quit the union and are, therefore, no longer union members. Using a legal sleight-of-hand to claim that workers can quit the government union, but they must keep paying union dues until they request to opt out, which they can do only during a specified opt-out window that may be months or even years in the future, government unions claim that they can keep taking money from workers’ paychecks regardless of the fact that these workers are not members of the union.
These government unions claim that the employees—in this case, Cindy DuPuis and Tiffany Binder—signed a contract authorizing the unions to keep deducting membership dues from their paychecks even after they are no longer members of the union. Ohio’s law simply does not allow this unethical practice, and it is time for the court to tell the unions and the government that their practices are illegal and that they must stop taking money from workers’ paychecks.
To make matters worse, the courts tell workers that they need to file these cases with the State Employment Relations Board (SERB), and SERB tells workers that they have no jurisdiction in contract disputes and that workers need to file these cases in court. This Catch-22 leaves Ohio’s hardworking public employees with nowhere to go to recoup money taken out of their paychecks once the employees tell the unions to stop taking their money.
In DuPuis v. AFSCME, The Buckeye Institute is asking the court to order the government union to refund the money taken from Mrs. Binder after she quit the government union, and for the court to declare whether SERB or Ohio courts have jurisdiction in union contract dispute cases.
About Buckeye’s Clients
Inspired by her mother’s passion for her job, Tiffany Binder, became an accounting clerk for Toledo Public Schools in 2018. Starting as a sub-clerk, a position that works on an as-needed basis, Mrs. Binder moved up the ranks to become a full-time employee in June 2021. Mrs. Binder was proud to follow in the footsteps of her mother. And both joined the government union —American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 2174—because, as Mrs. Binder’s mother says, “that’s just what you did.”
Although Mrs. Binder gained great satisfaction from her work on behalf of her community and the school district, she did not feel the same way about the government union. She came to believe that, rather than working for all members, the union plays favorites and prioritizes the concerns of better-connected members.
In August 2023, Mrs. Binder notified union officials that she was leaving the union and requested that the union stop dues deductions from her paycheck. The union didn’t respond to Mrs. Binder for a month. Though the union finally acknowledged she was no longer a member, it refused to stop deducting dues, telling Mrs. Binder to send a request during a narrow opt-out window, which was nearly a year away. The union ignored repeated attempts to stop this wage theft.
For Mrs. Binder, the situation with the union got worse during her maternity leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Although the union was happy to take Mrs. Binder’s money, it refused to do anything to support her when the school district informed Mrs. Binder she would return to work as a substitute clerk despite her seniority. While the union helped other employees in a similar position, it refused to assist Mrs. Binder and continued taking her money for doing so.
Mrs. Binder was so upset about her treatment by the school district and the union that she resigned and turned to The Buckeye Institute for help.
Cindy DuPuis was a plaintiff in the case. On February 4, 2026, she filed a challenge with SERB.
Facts of the Case
Current Status
Pending with Ohio’s Sixth District Court of Appeals.
Case Number
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas: CI2025-02488
Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals: CL2025-00292
Originally Filed
July 9, 2025
Original Court
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas
Plaintiffs
Tiffany Binder
Lawyers
Jay R. Carson, senior litigator, The Buckeye Institute
David C. Tryon, director of litigation, The Buckeye Institute
Alex M. Certo, legal fellow, The Buckeye Institute
J. Simon Peter Mizner, legal fellow, The Buckeye Institute
Claims in the Case
Deducting union membership dues from the paychecks of a worker who has quit the union is illegal because the “contract” between the union and the employee was rescinded or voided. This assertion is based upon Ohio contract law, specifically the doctrines of recission based on mutual repudiation, mutual mistake, unenforceable penalty, unconscionable contracts of adhesion, and unjust enrichment.
The Buckeye Institute’s client is asking for damages in the amount of the union membership dues taken from her after she quit the government union, and she is requesting an injunction to prevent further union membership dues deductions from her paychecks. The Buckeye Institute also asks the court to declare whether SERB or Ohio courts have jurisdiction in union contract dispute cases.
Related Cases
Chandler v. OAPSE
Littlejohn v. AFSCME
Queen v. NEA
Sheldon v. OAPSE
Swanner v. OAPSE
Vanderveer v. OAPSE
Timeline of the Case
February 17, 2026
The Buckeye Institute files its reply briefs to SERB and AFSCME on behalf of Mrs. Binder in DuPuis v. AFSCME.
February 9, 2026
The Buckeye Institute files its motion to dismiss Ms. DuPuis as a plaintiff in DuPuis v. AFSCME. The Buckeye Institute continues to represent Mrs. Binder in her case against the union.
February 4, 2026
Ms. DuPuis files a challenge with SERB represented by Joshua Brown.
January 16, 2026
The Buckeye Institute files its appeal brief in DuPuis v. AFSCME with Ohio’s Sixth District Court of Appeals.
December 4, 2025
The Buckeye Institute files its notice of appeal in DuPuis v. AFSCME.
November 4, 2025
Judge Lori L. Olender grants AFSCME’s motion to dismiss DuPuis v. AFSCME.
October 20, 2025
Judge Lori L. Olender grants SERB’s motion to dismiss itself as a party in DuPuis v. AFSCME.
September 22, 2025
The Buckeye Institute files its memoranda opposing AFSCME’s motions to dismiss DuPuis v. AFSCME.
August 14, 2025
The Buckeye Institute files its memorandum opposing SERB’s motion to dismiss itself as a party in DuPuis v. AFSCME.
July 9, 2025
The Buckeye Institute files DuPuis v. AFSCME in Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.
