Littlejohn v. Am. Fedn. of State Cty. & Mun. Emps., Ohio Council 8, AFL-CIO

2025 Ohio 5492

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: C-250020
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as Littlejohn v. Am. Fedn. of State Cty. & Mun. Emps., Ohio Council 8, AFL-CIO, 2025-Ohio- 5492.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

NECOLE LITTLEJOHN, : APPEAL NO. C-250020 TRIAL NO. A-2403410 Plaintiff-Appellant, :

vs. :

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, : COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL JUDGMENT ENTRY EMPLOYEES, OHIO COUNCIL 8, AFL- : CIO, : Defendant-Appellee. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 12/10/2025 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

NECOLE LITTLEJOHN, : APPEAL NO. C-250020 TRIAL NO. A-2403410 Plaintiff-Appellant, :

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, : COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL OPINION EMPLOYEES, OHIO COUNCIL 8, AFL- : CIO, : Defendant-Appellee. :

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 10, 2025

The Buckeye Institute, Jay R. Carson and David C. Tyron, for Plaintiff-Appellant,

Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Kimm A. Massengill-Bernardin and Michelle R. Evans, for Defendant-Appellee. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

NESTOR, Judge.

{¶1} In a Catch-22 of her own making, plaintiff-appellant Necole Littlejohn

appeals from the court of common pleas. Littlejohn sought declaratory relief allowing

her to recover union membership dues after she withdrew from her union. She

originally filed a complaint with the State Employment Relations Board (“SERB”)

asking that it declare the automatic deduction of her union dues from her paycheck an

unfair labor practice. After investigating the complaint, SERB determined that the

union “did not commit an unfair labor practice.” SERB dismissed the complaint with

prejudice.

{¶2} Littlejohn filed an identical complaint the next month in the court of

common pleas against her union, the American Federation of State, County, and

Municipal Employees, Ohio Council 8, AFL-CIO (“AFSCME”). AFSCME filed a

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguing SERB had exclusive

jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion, and now Littlejohn appeals asserting

two assignments of error.

{¶3} We hold that SERB has exclusive jurisdiction over her claims, and the

trial court correctly dismissed her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶4} Plaintiff-appellant Littlejohn is a former member of AFSCME.

Littlejohn joined the union in 2016, but in light of the Supreme Court of the United

States’ decision in Janus v. Am. Fedn. of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 585

U.S. 878 (2018), she decided to terminate her membership. Prior to Janus, “every

employee represented by a union - even though not a union member – [was required

to] pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service fee equal in amount to

union dues.” Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Edn., 431 U.S. 209, 211 (1977). In Janus, the

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Supreme Court of the United States overruled Abood. Janus at 886. Now, a public

employee is no longer required to subsidize a union that represents that employee in

collective bargaining agreements; the employee can now choose whether to be a union

member and pay dues, or to not. Id. Employees, like Littlejohn, chose to terminate

their union memberships because they could now avoid paying dues even as a

nonmember.

{¶5} In the summer of 2021, Littlejohn sent a letter to AFSCME requesting

to cancel her membership and to stop deducting dues. The union responded on July

29, 2021, stating it would instruct her “local union to remove [her] name from the

membership roster.” However, it informed Littlejohn that

dues deduction will not be stopped at this time because

[her] letter does not revoke the dues checkoff

authorization card which [she] signed and because any

dues revocation request would need to be made and

received by the union in accordance with the union’s

current procedures and within a window period which

[she] agreed to when [she] signed the authorization card.

Littlejohn’s withdrawal period is in March of each year. She failed to opt out the

following March, and AFSCME continued to withdraw dues from her paycheck.

{¶6} Instead of withdrawing in March of 2022, Littlejohn sent a second letter

on June 21, 2022, stating her resignation and requesting to stop dues deductions. On

July 1, 2022, the union responded with a letter identical to the one sent to Littlejohn

the year prior. She again failed to opt out the following March, and AFSCME

continued to collect dues.

{¶7} Instead of withdrawing in March of 2023, Littlejohn filed an unfair

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

labor practice charge with SERB alleging that the union violated R.C. 4117.11(B)(1) and

(2). SERB investigated the charge and found that “the Union did not commit an unfair

labor practice. Ms. Littlejohn did not submit her request to stop dues deductions

during the 25 to 10 days prior to the date she signed her Dues Authorization and

Membership Card and Checkoff Agreement.” On June 20, 2024, SERB dismissed the

charge “with prejudice for lack of probable cause to believe the statute has been

violated.”

{¶8} On July 30, 2024, Littlejohn filed a complaint in the trial court

requesting a declaratory judgment on five counts identical to the ones found in her

SERB charge, and a sixth count that said, “IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MS.

LITTLEJOHN APPEALS SERB’S DECISION.” AFSCME filed a motion to dismiss the

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. AFSCME argued that SERB had

exclusive jurisdiction to hear Littlejohn’s complaint because she brought the same

complaint to SERB first and that the contractual counts exclusively fall under SERB’s

jurisdiction because they allege an unfair labor practice. Additionally, AFSCME

argued the court could not review the SERB decision because Littlejohn’s charges were

dismissed without adjudication, so the decision was not quasi-judicial in nature. The

trial court granted AFSCME’s motion to dismiss and Littlejohn appealed.

II. Analysis

{¶9} Littlejohn raises two assignments of error for this court’s review. In her

first assignment of error, she argues that the trial court erred in determining that her

complaint alleged unfair labor practices exclusive to SERB’s jurisdiction. In her

second assignment of error, she argues that the trial court denied her a forum in

violation of the Ohio Constitution’s Open Courts Provision.

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

A. First Assignment of Error

{¶10} In her first assignment of error, Littlejohn argues that the trial court

erred in dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because these

are common law contract claims, not unfair labor practices. She argues that this is not

an appeal of SERB’s decision.

{¶11} We review the dismissal of a case due to the lack of subject matter

jurisdiction de novo. See Cirino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., 2018-Ohio-2665, ¶

17. For the limited purpose of determining its jurisdiction over the matter, the trial

court is not required to accept the allegations of the complaint as true but may take

into account facts established in the record. Southgate Dev. Corp. v. Columbia Gas

Transm. Corp., 48 Ohio St.2d 211, 214 (1976). When ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(1)

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court must determine

if the complaint raises “any cause of action” that is cognizable in the forum court under

the applicable law. See State ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock, 42 Ohio St. 3d 77, 80 (1989).

{¶12} SERB has exclusive jurisdiction

in two general areas: (1) where one of the parties files charges

with SERB alleging an unfair labor practice under R.C. 4117.11;

or (2) a complaint brought before the court of common pleas

alleges conduct that constitutes an unfair labor practice

specifically enumerated in R.C. 4117.11, and the trial court

therefore dismisses the complaint for lack of subjectmatter [sic]

jurisdiction.

City of E. Cleveland v. E. Cleveland Firefighters Local 500, I.A.F.F., 70 Ohio St.3d

125, 127-128 (1994). Additionally, in Franklin Cty. Sheriff's Dept. v. Fraternal Order

of Police, Capital City Lodge No. 9, 59 Ohio St.3d 173 (1991), syllabus, the Supreme

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Ohio said, “[A] court of common pleas is without jurisdiction to render a

declaratory judgment determining rights that are established or limited by R.C.

4117.11, where the State Employment Relations Board is asked to make the same

determination in the context of an unfair labor practice charge.” Littlejohn’s claims

fall squarely within both areas of SERB’s exclusive jurisdiction.

{¶13} First, she filed charges with SERB stating she is “entitled to a

determination [that AFSCME’s] practice of continuing to collect union membership

dues from employees after those employees have resigned from the union is unlawful.”

In her SERB charge, she brought five counts that she labeled as common law contract

causes of action; in every count in her SERB charge she asked “THE COURT” to

declare an issue related to contract law. She brought a count for recission based on

mutual repudiation, for recission based on mutual mistake, for a declaration that

“THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE UNION” imposed an

unenforceable penalty, for a declaration that the contract between the supposedly

plural plaintiffs and the union was unconscionable, and lastly, for unjust enrichment.

Though framed as a complaint sounding in contract law, Littlejohn’s SERB complaint

charged AFSCME with alleged unfair labor practices in relation to the union’s

collective bargaining agreement. Because Littlejohn filed “charges with SERB alleging

an unfair labor practice under R.C. 4117.11,” her claims fall under SERB’s exclusive

jurisdiction. E. Cleveland Firefighters Local 500, 70 Ohio St.3d at 127-128.

{¶14} After SERB investigated the charge and determined there was “no

probable cause to believe the Charged Party violated R.C. 4117.11,” SERB dismissed

Littlejohn’s complaint with prejudice. Littlejohn then filed this case in the court of

common pleas “FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

IN THE ALTERNATIVE NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM SERB DECISION.” Her

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

complaint was nearly identical to the one filed with SERB and included the same five

counts plus a sixth count: “IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MS. LITTLEJOHN APPEALS

SERB’S DECISION.”

{¶15} AFSCME moved to dismiss because “a court of common pleas is without

jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment determining rights that are established

or limited by R.C. 4117.11, where the State Employment Relations Board is asked to

make the same determination in the context of an unfair labor practice charge.”

Franklin Cty. Sheriff's Dept., 59 Ohio St.3d, at syllabus. Because Littlejohn filed with

SERB first and asked SERB to make the same determination, SERB had exclusive

jurisdiction to hear her case. The trial court did not err in granting the motion to

dismiss.

{¶16} Though SERB has exclusive jurisdiction because Littlejohn filed with it

first, SERB also has exclusive jurisdiction because her “complaint brought before the

court of common pleas allege[d] conduct that constitutes an unfair labor practice

specifically enumerated in R.C. 4117.11.” See E. Cleveland Firefighters Local 500, 70

Ohio St.3d at 128. She also falls within the second general area of SERB’s exclusive

jurisdiction. Id. The court of common pleas would have been without jurisdiction

even if Littlejohn filed her complaint there first.

{¶17} Littlejohn argues that she “does not allege an unfair labor practice or

conduct that constitutes an unfair labor practice but instead raises a claim that is

independent of the rights created by R.C. Ch. 4117,” so “jurisdiction is not exclusive to

SERB and may be exercised by a common pleas court.” See Ohio Council 8 v. City of

Lakewood, 2025-Ohio-2052, ¶ 1. She argues that her claims are “contractual right[s]

derived from the [collective bargaining agreement] that exist[] independently of R.C.

Ch. 4117.” See id. at ¶ 15.

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶18} However, under the Lakewood analysis, Littlejohn’s contractual claims

arise from R.C. Ch. 4117 and are not independent of the collective bargaining

agreement. R.C. 4117.09(B)(2) specifically provides that the collective bargaining

agreement “[a]uthorizes the public employer to deduct the periodic dues[.]” Though

artfully worded, Littlejohn’s counts arise from and are dependent on the deduction of

periodic dues governed by the collective bargaining agreement. As this court has said,

“[A]rtful pleading does not alter the essence of a claim[.]” Ruehmer v. Queen City

Lodge No. 69, 2021-Ohio-2904, ¶ 32 (1st Dist.). Additionally, she undermines her

own argument with the fact that she filed a nearly identical complaint with SERB

explicitly alleging an unfair labor practice in violation of R.C. 41117.09(B)(1) and (2).

Littlejohn has alleged an unfair labor practice that is exclusive to SERB’s jurisdiction.

{¶19} Our sister district decided this very issue when it was determined that

instead of having five common law contract causes of action, the plaintiffs had alleged

violations of rights under R.C. Ch. 4117. Darling v. Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. and Mun.

Emps., 2024-Ohio-2181, ¶ 20 (10th Dist.). In Darling, former union members filed a

complaint in the court of common pleas seeking relief from the union’s continued

collection of dues after their resignations. Id. at ¶ 6. The Tenth District held that while

the complaint was framed as contract claims, the conduct complained of concerned

whether the union “breached its agreement with its former members,” “whether

compelled payroll deductions for membership dues violate the rights guaranteed to

public employees under R.C. Chapter 4117,” and “whether the public employers’

actions violated their respective collective bargaining agreements.” Id. at ¶ 19. These

issues, almost identical to those presented by Littlejohn, fell under SERB’s exclusive

jurisdiction. Id. at ¶ 22.

{¶20} Littlejohn argues she is in a Catch-22. In her view, SERB does not have

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

jurisdiction to hear her complaint and neither does the court of common pleas; she is

without relief. This, however, mischaracterizes SERB’s actions. SERB did not dismiss

her complaint for lack of jurisdiction over her supposed contract claims. Instead,

SERB investigated her complaint and dismissed the charge “with prejudice for lack of

probable cause” that an unfair labor practice occurred. And because SERB dismissed

her complaint, the court of common pleas cannot review her dismissal on appeal. See

State ex rel. Leigh v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 76 Ohio St.3d 143, 144 (1996)

(“[p]robable cause determinations by SERB under R.C. 4117.12(B) are not reviewable

by direct appeal”). Her Catch-22 arises simply from her displeasure with SERB’s

ruling and may be more appropriately classified as an attempted second bite at the

apple.

{¶21} Littlejohn has another option that she has not chosen to exercise.

Instead of filing a complaint with the court of common pleas, “mandamus is an

appropriate remedy where no statutory right of appeal is available to correct an abuse

of discretion by SERB.” Id. at 145; see State ex rel. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics

& Allied Workers Internatl. Union, Local 333, AFL-CIO, CLC v. State Emp. Relations

Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 157, 159 (1993). Littlejohn may still seek a writ of mandamus “to

correct an abuse of discretion by SERB to dismiss unfair labor practice charges.” Id.

{¶22} Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s first assignment of error.

B. Second Assignment of Error

{¶23} In her second assignment of error, Littlejohn asserts that the trial

court’s dismissal of her complaint violates the Ohio Constitution’s Open Courts

Provision. Article I, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution states, “[A]ll courts shall be

open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or

reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered

10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

without denial or delay.”

{¶24} For an appeal to arise from an administrative decision, the proceedings

must have been quasi-judicial in nature. M. J. Kelley Co. v. Cleveland, 32 Ohio St.2d

150, 153 (1972). A court may “review . . . proceedings of administrative officers and

agencies, authorized by Section 4(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, [for] quasi-

judicial proceedings only[.]” (Emphasis added.) Id. at syllabus. As such,

“administrative actions of administrative officers and agencies not resulting from

quasi-judicial proceedings are not appealable to the Court of Common Pleas under the

provisions of R. C. 2506.01.” Id.

{¶25} When SERB dismisses a complaint, it is not judicial in nature, and the

party that filed the charge cannot appeal. See State ex rel. Leigh, 76 Ohio St.3d at 144.

When a party files a charge with SERB alleging an unfair labor practice, the board

“shall investigate the charge. If the board has probable cause for believing that a

violation has occurred, the board shall issue a complaint and shall conduct a hearing

concerning the charge.” Id. If SERB dismisses a charge, however, then the board does

not conduct a hearing, and the proceedings are not quasi-judicial. See Gunn v. Euclid

Teachers Assn., 65 Ohio App.3d 312, 316 (8th Dist. 1989) (“In the absence of a finding

of probable cause by SERB, their decision cannot be deemed quasi-judicial in

nature.”).

{¶26} Here, SERB dismissed the complaint “with prejudice for lack of

probable cause to believe the statute has been violated.” SERB’s dismissal of

Littlejohn’s charge was not quasi-judicial in nature and therefore she cannot appeal

that decision to the court of common pleas.

{¶27} There is no violation of Section 4(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution

because while Littlejohn does not have a statutory right to appeal, she still has another

11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

option. “[M]andamus is an appropriate remedy where no statutory right of appeal is

available to correct an abuse of discretion by SERB.” State ex rel. Leigh at 145, citing

State ex rel. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers Internatl. Union,

Local 333, AFL-CIO, 66 Ohio St.3d at 159. A court will issue a writ of mandamus “to

correct an abuse of discretion by SERB to dismiss unfair labor practice charges.” Id.,

citing State ex rel. Ohio Assn. of Public School Emps./AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State

Emp. Relations Bd., 64 Ohio St.3d 149, 151-152 (1992). Mandamus remains the proper

option for Littlejohn.

{¶28} Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s second assignment of error.

III. Conclusion

{¶29} Having overruled both of appellant’s assignments of error, we affirm the

trial court’s judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

ZAYAS, P.J., and MOORE, J., concur.