Right to Work Foundation Announces New Addition to Legal Team

Regent-trained attorney dedicated to the cause of individual liberty for America's workers

Washington, DC (January 30, 2012) – The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has hired Sarah Hartsfield of Austin, Texas, as an addition to its legal staff.

Hartsfield is a recently sworn in member of the Virginia State Bar and 2011 graduate of the Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

"Sarah brings to the Foundation a real commitment to defending and advancing individual liberty against the injustices of compulsory unionism," said Ray LaJeunesse, vice president and legal director of the National Right to Work Foundation.

"She will assist the Foundation's cutting-edge legal team in defending America's workers from Big Labor's growing influence in the public sector, enforcing individual employees' rights against compulsory unionism, and establishing new precedents to increase workplace freedom for America’s workers."

As the newest of the Foundation's 12 staff attorneys, Hartsfield will help build on the Foundation's litigation record for union-abused workers that includes 15 cases at the United States Supreme Court, seven of which were won in whole or in part, and one of which was argued earlier this month. Currently, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys represent thousands of workers in nearly 200 active cases nationwide.

Before joining the Foundation, Hartsfield served as an intern for the Singer Legal Group in Virginia Beach, Virginia and the Chesapeake Public Defender's Office in Chesapeake, Virginia. She was also an intern, and later an executive assistant, at the Ashcroft Group, L.L.C. in Washington, D.C.

While at Regent, Hartsfield participated in a variety of activities and clubs and was an Associate Member of Regent's Moot Court Board, competed in numerous moot court competitions, and was a member of the Student Ambassador program. She holds a bachelors degree in Government from the University of Texas, where she graduated in 2008.

Read more about the Foundation's legal team here.

Tennessee Teacher Wins Settlement that Refunds Union Dues Used for Controversial Political Activities

Polk County educator had to contribute to the ACLU, NOW just to have a say in his workplace

Polk County, TN (October 3, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Tennessee public school teacher has won a full refund of union dues from the Polk County Education Association (PCEA), Tennessee Education Association (TEA), and National Education Association (NEA) unions. The settlement results from a 2003 complaint filed in state court by Dewey Esquinance, who wished to become a member of the PCEA to participate in negotiations over his wages and working conditions without supporting the union’s political activities.

After a Polk County Circuit Court dismissed the case in 2004, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and remanded the case back to the circuit court for further deliberations. Rather than go to trial, union lawyers later offered Esquinance a full dues refund, plus interest.

When the original complaint was filed, nonunion teachers at unionized schools were not permitted to vote on contracts between the union and their employer and therefore had no say over their wages and working conditions. After Esquinance joined the PCEA, however, he learned that most union members’ dues were funneled to the TEA and the NEA, the union’s state and national affiliates. These dues were then used to support a variety of political causes Esquinance found objectionable, including financial contributions to the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women.

Last summer, Tennessee state law was amended to abolish monopoly union bargaining for public school teachers, which prevented nonunion educators from having a voice at their workplace. As a result, Esquinance and other teachers like him no longer have to join a union to participate in negotiations over their wages and working conditions.

Despite these reforms, Esquinance continued to pursue his lawsuit against the PCEA and the TEA to recover the dues union officials had spent on political activities he found objectionable.

“We’re happy to report that Dewey Esquinance’s dues will finally be returned to their rightful owner,” said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Nonunion teachers shouldn’t have to join a union or financially support controversial political activism just to have a say in their workplace, which is why this settlement is a victory for Tennessee educators.”

Michigan Worker Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Halt UAW Policy of Religious Discrimination

Right to Work attorneys challenge union officials’ violation of worker’s civil rights

Washington, DC (December 15, 2009) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker is asking the U.S. Supreme Court today to review a United Auto Workers (UAW) union policy intended to stymie workers’ religious objections to the union bosses’ agenda.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman, Michigan, assembles vehicles for AM General. Because his workplace is unionized, he works under a monopoly bargaining agreement which forces him either to join the UAW or pay compulsory union fees to it in order to keep his job. However, Reed, a devout Catholic, believes financially supporting the UAW union violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals and abortion-on-demand.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the worker’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. The statute requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by redirecting the mandatory union fees to a mutually agreed upon charity – to avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral.

However, because Reed is refraining from full dues paying union membership based on his faith, UAW union bosses forced him to pay a $100 premium and continue to pay 22 percent more than the amount workers who object on non-religious grounds must pay. Both full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they wish to cut off the use of their union dues for political activities.

In 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined UAW officials violated federal law and issued Reed a “right to sue” letter, but the union hierarchy still refused to grant him a proper accommodation. Foundation litigators then filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and later appealed an unfavorable trial court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Foundation attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the lower courts’ decisions which require Reed to be discharged or disciplined before he can challenge the UAW’s practice of forcing religious objectors to pay more than the forced dues paid by nonmembers who refrain from union membership for purely secular reasons. Foundation attorneys also point out in their brief that the nation’s federal circuit courts are equally divided on the issue.

“By maintaining a discriminatory policy, the UAW hierarchy appears to have little regard for those who have deep moral objections to the union and its objectionable activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees should not have to take legal action for union officials to respect their fundamental right to religious freedom.”

Coldwater Teacher Files Federal Suit Against Ohio Teacher Union Notorious for Religious Discrimination

Ohio Education Association Union Continues Its Assault on Teachers of Faith

Columbus, OH (December 4, 2008) - A fourth grade teacher from the Coldwater Exempted Village School District has filed a federal suit against the state’s largest teacher union for forcing her to pay compulsory union fees to fund the union whose activities violate her religious faith.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, providing the teacher with free legal aid, filed the suit this week in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Kathy Hart, an active member of the Catholic Church, has been a teacher in the Ohio public school system since August 1996. Because the public school she works in is unionized, she works under a collective bargaining agreement which forces her to pay compulsory union fees to the National Education Association (NEA) union and its state and local affiliates - the Ohio Education Association (OEA) union and the Coldwater Teachers Organization (CTO) union. Due to her faith, Hart objects to the unions’ positions on abortion and special rights for homosexuals.

Hart had asked that the union divert her compulsory fees to a charity, thereby accommodating her religious objections to supporting financially unions she believes to be involved in immoral activities.

NEA union officials agreed to allow Hart to redirect her compulsory union dues to a mutually agreed upon charity. However, OEA officials refused to accommodate Hart and used the CTO to collect forced union dues from her paycheck. In response, Hart filed charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the union officials’ actions were religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC authorized Hart in September to proceed with her own civil action against the OEA and CTO.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have helped Ohio teachers in dozens of cases over the last decade involving harassment by officials at the OEA union and its affiliates.

“OEA union bosses have a long and abusive record of violating employees’ rights by refusing to accommodate religious objectors in the workplace,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The OEA union hierarchy’s ugly policy of forcing teachers to fund unions which offend their consciences will continue until Ohio gives employees the protections of a Right to Work law.”

A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide whether or not to join or financially support a union. In the 22 states that have passed Right to Work laws, employees are free to follow their conscience and refrain from supporting an unwanted union without having to resort to costly litigation.

Two Ohio Teachers of Faith Win Right to Refrain From Supporting Objectionable Union

National Education Association Union Agrees to Redirect Forced Dues to Make-a-Wish Foundation

Cincinnati, Ohio (September 24, 2008) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys recently obtained settlements with the National Education Association (NEA) union for two teachers whose consciences would not allow them to pay mandatory dues to support a union involved in activities they consider immoral. Geralyn Buening and Tessy Huwer, both practicing Catholics, objected to the NEA’s positions on abortion and special rights for homosexuals.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination against religious employees and requires companies and unions to attempt to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely-held religious beliefs. The obligation to accommodate includes the payment of compulsory union fees, as no employee should be forced to fund a union that engages in activities that offend their religious convictions.

The Ohio teachers originally filed charges against the NEA teacher union with the Ohio Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the union was in violation of their rights as religious objectors. In return for withdrawing the charges, the settlement allows the teachers to redirect their mandatory agency fees to the Make-A-Wish Foundation, rather than pay any funds whatsoever to a union hierarchy steeped in objectionable social activism.

The Ohio Education Association (OEA) has a long and abusive record of refusing to accommodate religious objectors in the workplace. National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have helped Ohio teachers in dozens of cases over the last decade involving the OEA and its affiliates. The EEOC has filed suit against OEA affiliates and released findings that OEA affiliates violated the rights of religious objectors. Congress has also investigated the problem of the OEA and its treatment of employees of faith. In fact, one OEA attorney went so far as to tell Carol Katter, a life-long Catholic, that she should “change religions” when she requested a religious accommodation to redirect her union fees to a charitable organization.

“While we applaud the EEOC for working with our legal aid team to reach an equitable settlement, abuses of this nature will continue as long as Ohio lacks a Right to Work law,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Making union affiliation completely voluntary is the most effective way to free employees from the abuses of forced unionism.”

Court Strikes Down Ohio Law Forcing Public Employees to Pay Union Dues Unless They Join Certain Religions

**Columbus, OH (June 22, 2007)** — In a victory for employee rights and the freedom of conscience, a St. Marys-area teacher has successfully challenged the constitutionality of a statewide law denying public employees their right to accommodations of religious objections that they have to paying union dues unless the objecting employees belong to certain state-approved religions.

The decision issued by U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost struck down the offending law as a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and permanently enjoined the Ohio State Employment Relations Board (SERB) from further enforcing the law against employees.

With free legal help from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Carol Katter, a 21-year veteran teacher in the St. Marys school district, filed the original complaint in January in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio’s Eastern Division against top officials of the SERB for religious discrimination.

In her complaint, Katter informed the Court that, even though she is a lifelong Catholic with religious objections to the union’s agenda, she was denied her right to a religious accommodation. Katter believes that failing to divert her forced dues from the Ohio Education Association (OEA) union to a charity contradicts her beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s position on hot button political issues such as abortion.

Adding insult to injury, an OEA union official told Katter that she must “change religions” to receive a religious accommodation before SERB. Katter’s complaint challenged the state statute as an unconstitutional establishment of religion and an infringement of her religious free exercise rights. Because Judge Frost struck down the statute on Establishment Clause grounds, he did not need to decide the issue of whether the SERB had violated Katter’s free exercise rights.

The ruling in Katter’s case follows another federal court decree issued last fall that re-affirmed that all public sector employees who have sincere religious objections to union affiliation cannot be forced to associate with and pay dues to a union they find objectionable. That decree was in another Foundation-assisted case challenging similar systematic religious discrimination throughout Ohio. However, for technical reasons, Ohio’s SERB itself was not formally bound by that decree even though it was well aware of its existence.

“Carol Katter’s struggle is part of a pattern of OEA union officials’ willingness to trample on the religious beliefs of the very employees they claim to represent just to stuff their pockets with more forced dues,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “While the ruling expands the rights available to employees of faith, abuses of forced unionism will inevitably continue until Ohio passes a Right to Work law making union membership and dues payment strictly voluntary.”

Katter also filed a related charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the OEA union, a state affiliate of the National Education Association, challenging an attempt by union officials to divert her forced dues to the local union rather than a charity. Currently the EEOC is still investigating the charge.

Download the Federal Court's Ruling

Western Michigan Auto Worker Hits UAW Union with Federal Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

**Detroit, MI (September 25, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a western Michigan auto worker today hit the United Auto Workers (UAW) union with a federal civil rights lawsuit for religious discrimination. In violation of federal labor law, union officials have applied a discriminatory policy that forces the employee to pay to charity fees in place of union dues that are higher than fees paid by nonmembers who object for secular reasons – or face termination.

Jeffrey Reed, a resident of Bridgman who assembles Hummer H2s for AM General, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after UAW union officials refused to grant him an adequate religious accommodation to paying dues to a union that conflicts with his religious beliefs.

“By maintaining a discriminatory policy, the UAW hierarchy appears to have little regard for those who have deep moral objections to the union and its activities,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “But this heavy-handed behavior towards workers who dare dissent comes as little surprise given the UAW bosses’ thuggish history.”

Though Reed prompted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to determine that UAW officials had violated federal law and issue him a “right to sue” letter, the union hierarchy has refused to grant him a proper accommodation.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the worker’s sincerely held religious beliefs. To avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral, the law requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the worker – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to receive the funds.

In spite of the law, UAW officials have forced Reed to pay to charity a $100 premium over the amount that any secular objecting worker is forced to pay. Reed continues to pay the discriminatory amount under protest to prevent UAW officials from ordering him fired.

As a devout Catholic, Reed believes that financially supporting the UAW union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals and abortion-on-demand.

“UAW officials want to single out Jeffrey Reed to make other employees of faith think twice about refusing to toe the union line,” said Gleason. “Employees should not have to take legal action for union officials to respect their fundamental right to religious freedom.”

Reed points out in his complaint that even full UAW members and secular objectors are allowed to pay an amount less than full dues if they want to cut off the use of their mandatory union dues for political activities.

Federal Court Decree Forces Union and State of Ohio to End Statewide Religious Discrimination

**Columbus, OH (September 6, 2006)** – Resolving a case brought by an Ohio state employee with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a federal judge signed a decree yesterday settling a religious discrimination lawsuit in union contracts for all state workers. The consent decree re-affirms that all public sector employees who have sincere religious objections to union affiliation cannot be forced to associate with and pay dues to a union they find objectionable.

The state’s agencies and the union hierarchy were denying, as a matter of policy, religious objections to the payment of forced union dues when objecting employees were not members of certain state-approved churches.

The settlement concludes a lawsuit for systemic religious discrimination filed by Foundation attorneys, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the State of Ohio, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OPEA), the Ohio State Employment Relations Board, the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) union, and the Ohio Department of Administrative Services.

In a related matter, the EEOC also determined that the OCSEA union illegally retaliated against the worker who brought the original case after objecting to union affiliation on religious grounds. OCSEA union officials’ had filed a retaliatory counter-claim against Glen Greenwood – a 28-year OEPA employee – demanding that he repay the union for all raises and employment benefits he received for the past quarter century.

As a devout Presbyterian, Greenwood believes that supporting the OCSEA union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs because of the union’s support for abortion on demand and special rights for homosexuals.

“This decree stalls state and OCSEA union officials’ systematic religious discrimination against Ohio’s public servants,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason. “The union hierarchy’s willingness to violate employees’ religious freedom demonstrates how their interests are squarely at odds with the employees they claim to represent.”

The actions of OCSEA union officials and the state agencies violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under Title VII, an employee may not be forced to financially support a union if doing so violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. To avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral, the law requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the employee – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to accept the funds.

Safeway Employee’s Suit Forces Union Officials to End Religious Discrimination

**Seattle, WA (July 13, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Safeway employee won a judgment this week against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union officials forcing them to drop their discriminatory policy intended to deter workers from exercising their religious freedoms.

Daniel Gautschi, manager in a Safeway meat department, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in early May after UFCW Local 81 union officials set forth conditions that forced him, if he should ever have an employment grievance, to affiliate with – and pay additional money to – a union that conflicts with his religious beliefs.

Shortly after Gautschi filed his charges, the union hierarchy, governing Safeway stores in King and Kitsat counties, backtracked. Because federal law grants union officials many coercive privileges over employees, including the power to force their “representation” on workers who do not even want it, union lawyers recognized the union could not act discriminatorily toward nonunion members.

The union hierarchy therefore adopted a policy that all costs associated with grievance and arbitration processing of any employee – including religious objectors – are to be paid out of the union’s general treasury, which includes the forced union dues collected under its monopoly bargaining agreement. The settlement stipulates that union officials must refrain from further retaliation against Gautschi or any other employee who seeks to assert his or her legal rights to religious freedom.

Union officials allowed Gautschi to divert his forced union dues (paid as a condition of employment) to a charity – an accommodation previously won by Foundation attorneys – before Gautschi filed his lawsuit. However, they continued to maintain an illegal scheme intended to deter employees from exercising their right to assert religious objections in the first place. The discriminatory scheme forced only employees who assert religious objections to pay the union all costs associated with use of grievance procedures under the bargaining agreement – even though union officials tightly control the process, and employees are totally barred from filing grievances on their own.

As a devout Christian, Gautschi believes that supporting the UFCW union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs due to the union hierarchy’s support for special rights for homosexuals.

“This victory stalls UFCW union officials’ all-out offensive on employees’ right to freedom of religion in this part of Washington,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “However, employees of faith should not have to take legal action simply to force union officials to honor their fundamental rights.”

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, union officials may not force any employee to financially support a union if doing so violates the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs. To avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral, the law requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the employee – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to receive the funds.

EEOC Cites Government Employee Union for Illegal Retaliation Against Worker Exercising Religious Freedom

**Columbus, OH (June 20, 2006)** — Following a related and unprecedented Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a determination against the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) union for illegal retaliation against a worker who objects to union affiliation on religious grounds.

Agreeing with National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, the EEOC found that OCSEA union officials’ retaliatory suit against Glen Greenwood – a 28-year Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) employee – demanding that he repay the union for all raises and employment benefits he received for the past quarter century was unlawful retaliation for his complaint against the union requesting religious accommodation.

The EEOC found the retaliation to be so severe that it could seek up to $300,000 in punitive damages and ask the state to grant Greenwood a promotion.

An earlier charge, also filed for Greenwood with free legal assistance from the Foundation, had already led to a finding by the EEOC that the OCSEA union and the OEPA were guilty of religious discrimination. Despite the EEOC finding, the state’s agencies and the OCSEA union have maintained their practice of denying religious objections to the payment of forced union dues from employees who are not members of certain state-approved churches.

As a devout Presbyterian, Greenwood believes that supporting the OCSEA union violates his sincerely held religious beliefs because of the union’s support for abortion on demand and special rights for homosexuals.

Previously, recognizing a pattern and practice of civil rights infringement, the DOJ filed an unprecedented lawsuit in federal court against the State of Ohio and several state agencies in September 2005 for systemic religious discrimination. The DOJ suit – filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio – names the State of Ohio, the OEPA, the Ohio State Employment Relations Board, the OCSEA union, and the Ohio Department of Administrative Services as defendants.

“This determination from the EEOC and the unprecedented involvement by the DOJ in a case of this nature demonstrates the seriousness of the abuse that Ohio employees face when objecting to union affiliation on religious grounds,” stated National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason.

The actions of OCSEA union officials and the aforementioned state agencies violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Under Title VII, an employee may not be forced to financially support a union if doing so violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. To avoid the conflict between an employee’s faith and a requirement to pay fees to a union he or she believes to be immoral, the law requires union officials to attempt to accommodate the employee – most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to accept the funds.