UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1531

GARY MATTOS; DORIS BEEGLE; VICKIE BOGGS; BRADLEY FRENCH; 

CARLA GURGANUS; STEVEN HALE; JOHN HILL; BENJAMIN ICKES; 

MICHELLE LAMBERT; JESSICA MERRITT; JOHN MEYERS; CAROLE 

MILLER; MELISSA POTTER; JIM RIEMAN; LAURIE RUBIN; JOYCE 

STONER; RUSSELL STOTT; LARRY TEETS, on behalf of themselves and all 

those similarly situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

KIMBERLY GRIFFITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL 

EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 3,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:19-cv-02539-GLR)

Submitted: August 29, 2022 Decided: September 16, 2022

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1531 Doc: 30 Filed: 09/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
2

ON BRIEF: Brian K. Kelsey, Reilly Stephens, LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER, Chicago, 

Illinois; Aaron Solem, NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE 

FOUNDATION, Springfield, Virginia, for Appellants. Leon Dayan, Jacob Karabell, 

BREDHOFF & KAISER, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1531 Doc: 30 Filed: 09/16/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Gary Mattos, an employee of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and 

Correctional Services, along with various other Maryland state employees (collectively 

“Appellants”), appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their putative class action 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the American Federation of State, County 

and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 3 (“AFSCME”), a labor union that 

represented Maryland public sector employees. Appellants filed their complaint after the 

Supreme Court decided, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal 

Employees Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018), that “public-sector unions may no 

longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees.” The complaint alleged that 

Appellants, who were not union members, were required to pay agency fees to AFSCME 

as a condition of employment pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement AFSCME had 

with the State from 2011 to 2018. Appellants sought to recover the amounts paid in agency 

fees prior to the Janus decision. The district court granted AFSCME’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, finding that Appellants’ claim was barred by AFSCME’s goodfaith defense. We affirm. 

On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court erred in allowing AFSCME to 

assert a good-faith defense to its 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, and that this court should decline 

to recognize a good-faith defense. However, after Appellants’ brief was filed, we decided 

the issue of whether a union can assert a good-faith defense in a Janus claim under § 1983

in Akers v. Maryland State Educ. Ass’n, 990 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2021). We concluded, in 

accordance with six other courts of appeals, that the good-faith defense is available to 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1531 Doc: 30 Filed: 09/16/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
4

private parties sued under § 1983, and that the union was entitled to assert the good-faith 

defense in the Janus context. Id. 380-83. Because Akers directly applies to the legal 

question at issue here, we hold that the district court did not err in determining that 

AFSCME was entitled to assert a good-faith defense and granting AFSCME’s motion to 

dismiss. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1531 Doc: 30 Filed: 09/16/2022 Pg: 4 of 4