Todd v. AFSCME Council 5

Case Attorney: Nicholas Nelson

The Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC) represents Minnesota worker Marcus Todd in multiple lawsuits against AFSCME Council 5, alleging that the union unlawfully took money from his paycheck—including through the use of a forged membership authorization.

Mr. Todd, a security counselor at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program in St. Peter, challenges both the continued deduction of union dues after his resignation and the alleged fabrication of a document used to justify those deductions.

What This Case Is About

This case centers on a fundamental question:
Can a union take money from a worker’s paycheck based on an authorization the worker never signed?

According to the complaint, the answer is no.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME (2018), public employees like Mr. Todd gained the right to stop paying union fees. Mr. Todd exercised that right and attempted to resign his union membership.

But the lawsuit alleges the union relied on a forged 2018 membership card to continue deducting dues from his paycheck, despite repeated objections and evidence that the signature was not his.

Key Allegations

The lawsuits allege that AFSCME Council 5:

Forged or relied on a forged membership authorization
Continued collecting union dues without valid consent
Ignored repeated objections and evidence from Mr. Todd
Retained wages in violation of constitutional and state law

The federal lawsuit further argues that these actions violate the First Amendment protections recognized in Janus, which prohibits forcing public employees to financially support union speech without clear and voluntary consent.

Legal Claims

Across the federal and state cases, UMLC asserts claims including:

• Violation of First Amendment rights
• Civil theft
• Unjust enrichment
• Tortious interference with contractual relations

Mr. Todd seeks repayment of unlawfully deducted wages, damages, and accountability for the alleged misconduct.

Case Developments

The federal case was initially dismissed by the district court based on the “state action doctrine,” and that decision was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

UMLC then petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the case, raising significant questions about whether unions can use government payroll systems to collect dues without constitutional scrutiny. While the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the case, the issues presented remain critical to worker rights nationwide.

Separately, UMLC filed a state court lawsuit in Nicollet County to pursue claims related to the alleged forgery and unlawful wage deductions. That case remains ongoing.

Why It Matters

This case raises serious concerns about worker rights and union accountability in the wake of the Janus decision.

At stake is whether unions can continue collecting dues without clear, voluntary consent—and what recourse workers have when their wages are taken based on disputed or fraudulent authorizations.

UMLC continues to pursue this case to ensure that constitutional protections are enforced and that workers are not forced to subsidize organizations against their will.