• Gagne v. A&R, Local 4200

    Since at least December 2018, either Local 4200 or CPFU have posted material on state-provided bulletin boards denigrating those who have chosen not to join a union and discouraging employees from exercising their right not to become or remain a union member. Erik Gagne and Barry Wallett allege that Local 4200, CPFU, and the Department committed prohibited labor practices.

  • Nguyen v. A&R Local 4200

    Phuong Kim Nguyen and Van Nguyen (no relation) are Fiscal Administrative Officers for the State of Connecticut. When they resigned from the union, the Administrative and Residual Employees Union, Local 4200, they were told that the membership forms they had signed the year before locked them into paying union dues indefinitely, even after resigning their union membership.

  • Kabler v. UFCW, Local 1776

    From his first day of employment, UFCW officials told John Kabler he had to be a union member as a condition of employment. Mr. Kabler later found that was not true and resigned his union membership, but UFCW rejected Mr. Kabler’s resignation, and continued to take money from his paycheck against his will.

  • James v. SEIU, Local 668

    Megan James resigned from SEIU Local 668 in July 2018. The union ignored her resignation and continued to take money out of her paycheck. Ms. James and others are now suing to ensure their constitutional rights are protected. 

  • Kiddo v. AFSCME, Local 2206

    Public-sector union officials tasked with representing Mark Kiddo and his coworkers concealed vital information from them, elevating AFSCME officials’ interests over the interests of the employees actually working for Erie Water Works. 

  • Molina v. SEIU, Local 668

    The SEIU refused to recognize Mr. Molina’s resignation in July 2018 and relied on an invalid SEIU membership card to extract dues from his paycheck. Although Mr. Molina no longer works in an SEIU-represented bargaining unit, he seeks a return of unconstitutionally collected dues.

  • Hartnett v. PSEA

    Greg Hartnett chose not to be a member of the teachers union. Yet the law allows unions to require nonmembers to pay fees regardless of whether they want  representation. Collective bargaining is inherently political, and compelling nonmembers to pay to a union that they've chosen not to join violates protections of the First Amendment. 

  • IAFF, Local 825 v. UPFFA

    Local 825 firefighters voted to leave the statewide union in 2016. The union recognized Local 825’s decision but continued to bill monthly "dues." Now, a collections agency is calling Local 825’s leadership and their family members in an effort to collect over $50,000 in alleged "back dues."

  • Ramos v. Allentown Education Association

    Teachers are paid to teach. But some unions take teachers from the classroom to do full-time union work. Many of these “ghost teachers”—who remain on district payroll—have worked full-time for the union for decades. 

  • Misja v. PSEA

    Schoolteacher Linda Misja has never been a member of the PSEA and she has never paid a fee for its representation—which she does not want. Ms. Misja is a religious objector to the union which means that her fee to the union can instead go to a nonreligious charity. Except that the PSEA won't let her decide where her money goes.

  • Ladley v. PSEA

    As religious objectors to union membership, teachers Jane Ladley, Chris Meier, and Linda Misja can send their money, otherwise “owed” the union, to charity. But the state’s largest teachers’ union rejected their chosen charities and is holding their money in escrow.

Amicus Cases

  • Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31

    On June 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision that affects the rights of public-sector employees across the country. The decision, Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, involved a public employee, Mark Janus, who declined to join a union but was nevertheless required under a union contract to pay union fees. For years, these compulsory union fees were considered legal.

  • Bierman v. Dayton

    The state of Minnesota compels individuals who are not public employees, namely individual Medicaid providers, to accept an exclusive representative for speaking with the state over certain public policies. Is it constitutional for the government to compel individuals who are not government employees to accept an organization as their exclusive representative for dealing with the government? 

Closed Cases

  • Wessner v. AFSCME, Council 13

    Tammy Wessner is a psychiatric aide at Wernersville State Hospital. She resigned her membership in 2018 after several years of researching how to get out of the union because she believes that the union does not represent her interests or beliefs. The union, however, refused to honor her resignation, never even bothering to respond to her resignation letter.

  • Thompson v. AFSCME, District Council 89

    Curtis Thompson was a union member but resigned his membership because he believes that the union no longer represented his interests or beliefs. The union refuses to honor his resignation. Mr. Thompson contends that the union’s failure to honor his resignation violates his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association.

  • Smith v. Wolf

    David Smith, homebound with muscular dystrophy, has relied on Don Lambrecht as his homecare worker for 25 years. An executive order from Governor Wolf would let unions collect $8 million annually in dues from homecare workers by forcing representation on people like Mr. Lambrecht. 

  • In the Matter of the Employees of PSU

    Michael Cronin became a graduate assistant at Penn State to further his education and believes that a union would interfere with that opportunity. If the union wins its election, it will become the “exclusive representative” for Mr. Cronin and every other graduate assistant—even those who voted against the union or neglected to vote. 

  • Neely v. AFSCME, Council 13

    William Neely has sued AFSCME, Council 13 because the union refuses to honor his resignation, telling him that he can only resign from the union during a 15-day window period in mid-2019. Mr. Neely alleges in his lawsuit that this resignation restriction violates his constitutional rights to freedom of association and speech.

  • Spano Lonis v. SEIU, District 1199NE

    Cheryl Spano Lonis resigned her union membership in 2015. But for nearly three years, the union ignored her resignation and the State of Connecticut continued collecting full union dues from her wages.
  • Americans for Fair Treatment v. REA

    Since 2011, the President of the Reading Education Association teachers union cost Reading taxpayers more than $580,000, even while working exclusively for the union. On top of receiving a generous salary, the REA President accrued seniority as if he were still teaching in the classroom, as well as pension credits. 

  • Dailey v. APSCUF

    Mary Ann Dailey is an Associate Professor of Nursing with more than 25 years of teaching experience. Ms. Dailey is also a member of the public-sector union APSCUF. Ms. Dailey challenged APSCUF’s practice of manipulating dues and creating a deceptive fundraising program in an effort to further fund union political work.

  • Americans for Fair Treatment v. Philadelphia Federation of Teachers

    In Philadelphia, teachers on leave from the classroom are used to staff public-sector union offices, to lobby for unions’ political causes and candidates, and to promote union membership at the workplace. 

  • Green v. Wolf

    The Fairness Center represented School Reform Commission ("SRC") member and former Democratic City Councilman, Bill Green, in his fight to be reinstated as rightful Chairman of the SRC. Governor Wolf illegally removed Mr. Green as Chairman of the SRC after Mr. Green’s reforms drew the ire of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.

  • Trometter v. National Education Association

    If someone used your name on an election mailer to solicit votes for a candidate without your consent, you’d probably feel betrayed. But what if they sent that mailer to your spouse, lied about who you were voting for, and made you pay for it all—violating state law in the process?