Multiple cases headed to High Court seeking ruling against arrangements that violate workers’ rights under 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision

Washington, DC (June 21, 2021) – Staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have just submitted petitions for writ of certiorari in two class-action civil rights cases seeking to enforce workers’ First Amendment rights. In both cases public educators are challenging union boss-created restrictions on their First Amendment right to refrain from funding unwanted union hierarchies in their workplaces.

One petition was filed for Chicago Public Schools educators Joanne Troesch and Ifeoma Nkemdi, whose lawsuit against the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and the Chicago Board of Education challenges a union boss-created “escape period” scheme that blocks workers from exercising their right to terminate dues deductions from their paychecks outside the month of August.

The second petition was filed in a lawsuit brought by New Jersey teachers Susan Fischer and Jeanette Speck, who are suing the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) union for enforcing a similar annual window that restricts employees in the exercise of their Janus rights to just 10 days annually, less than 3% of the year.

Both lawsuits argue that these union dues “escape periods” run afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which was won by Foundation staff attorneys in 2018. In Janus, the court ruled that no public worker can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping his or her job. The Court further held that union bosses contravene the First Amendment if they seize any money from an employee’s paycheck without an affirmative consent and a knowing waiver of that employee’s First Amendment rights.

Fischer and Speck, who both work in Ocean Township, NJ, attempted to exercise their Janus rights in July 2018, just a month after the High Court handed down the Janus decision. But Township officials told the teachers they could only stop payments and withdraw their memberships during an annual 10-day window. Unbeknownst to them, union partisans in the New Jersey legislature had actually established that “escape period” by law in May 2018 in an apparent attempt to defang the pending Janus decision.

Fischer and Speck’s suit argues that because the Janus ruling gave public employees the First Amendment right not to financially support union activities, the New Jersey law is unconstitutional and must be nixed. In addition to eliminating the “escape period” scheme, they seek a refund of membership dues for themselves and all other public employees who were blocked by NJEA officials from stopping dues deductions following Janus.

Nkemdi and Troesch’s original lawsuit explains that both educators “did not know they had a constitutional right not to financially support” the union hierarchy until the fall of 2019, when they discovered their Janus rights while looking for information on how to continue working during a strike that CTU bosses ordered that October. They sent letters the same month to CTU officials to exercise their Janus right to resign union membership and cut off all dues deductions.

Both educators received no response until November of that year, when CTU officials confirmed receipt of the letters but said that they would continue to seize dues from the teachers’ paychecks “until September 1, 2020,” as per the union’s “escape period” scheme. Troesch and Nkemdi demanded in their lawsuit that CTU union officials and the Board of Education stop enforcing the “escape period,” notify all bargaining unit employees that they can end dues deductions any time, and permit bargaining unit employees to claim back dues that were already seized without their consent.

“‘Escape periods’ like those forced on Troesch, Nkemdi, Fischer, and Speck serve no purpose other than to keep the hard-earned cash of public servants who oppose union officials’ so-called ‘representation’ flowing into union coffers even after those employees have clearly exercised their First Amendment right to object to such payments,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “With opposition to these schemes growing among public employees, the Supreme Court must quickly take up this issue and clarify that Janus does not permit union bosses to profit from curtailing workers’ constitutional rights.”

NLRB still investigating union officials for fine issued after worker exercised right to end union membership and began working for firm outside union’s control

Colorado Springs, CO (June 11, 2021) – With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Colorado Springs metal worker Russell Chacon has forced International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART) Local 9 union officials to abandon their illegal demands against him for tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

Chacon filed an unfair labor practice charge at Region 27 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Denver last month after he received a message from SMART union bosses imposing $21,252 in union disciplinary fines on him. The demand came despite the fact that Chacon had resigned his union membership and left a job at a contractor under SMART Local 9’s power several months earlier to work at a Pueblo facility free from union control.

Now, just weeks after the charge was filed, SMART union bosses have rescinded their fine demands. However, an NLRB investigation is ongoing into SMART union officials’ actions surrounding the ruinous fine they attempted to impose against Chacon.

SMART agents claimed in correspondence with Chacon that the fine was for an alleged “loss of funds” supposedly resulting from his working for an employer outside SMART’s influence. Decades-old federal law prohibits union officials from forcing internal union discipline on workers who have exercised their right to refrain from union membership, and from restricting the exercise of that basic right.

Chacon used to work for Colorado Sheet Metal, a Colorado Springs-based contractor whose employees are under the monopoly bargaining power of the SMART Local 9 union. According to his unfair labor practice charge, he sent a letter to SMART union officials resigning his union membership in November 2020, and soon after went to work for Rocky Mechanical, a Pueblo-based firm outside the SMART union’s control.

The union fine demand, which came several months after his change in jobs, ordered Chacon to fork over money to cover the alleged union “loss of funds” for a period through May 31, which at that time included days that Chacon had not even worked yet.

“While we are pleased that Mr. Chacon no longer faces this outrageous and unlawful fine, rank-and-file workers should not have to file federal charges just to have rights respected,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Colorado still lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers to ensure that no employee is forced to pay tribute to union bosses just to get or keep a job, including union officials who blatantly ignore decades of longstanding law to retaliate against workers seeking not to associate with a labor union.”

Worker slammed with unlawful demands after he exercised right to end union membership and began working for firm outside union’s control

Colorado Springs, CO (May 25, 2021) – A Colorado Springs metal worker has just filed a federal unfair labor practice charge against International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART) Local 9 union officials, whom he asserts are illegally trying to fine him tens of thousands of dollars after he resigned his union membership and went to work for a contractor not under union control.

He filed his charge at Region 27 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Denver with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.

The worker, Russell Chacon, maintains in his charge that by “issuing unlawful fines and or internal charges” SMART union officials violated his right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to refrain from all union activities. Under federal law, union officials cannot forbid workers from ending their formal union memberships or mete out internal union discipline on employees who refrain from union membership.

Although federal law going back to 1947 also prohibits union bosses from requiring union membership as a condition of employment, states like Colorado which lack Right to Work protections grant union officials the power to force workers to pay them fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. In Right to Work states, both union membership and financial support are completely voluntary.

Chacon used to work for Colorado Sheet Metal, a Colorado Springs-based contractor whose employees are under the monopoly bargaining power of the SMART Local 9 union. According to his charge, he sent a letter to SMART union officials resigning his union membership in November 2020 and soon after went to work for Rocky Mechanical, a Pueblo-based firm outside the SMART union’s control.

Chacon’s charge reports that he later received a message from union officials ordering him to pay $21,252 to make up for an alleged “loss of funds” supposedly resulting from his working at a contractor outside the SMART union’s bargaining power. The period for which SMART officials are demanding this payment goes through May 31, 2021, and includes days Chacon has not even worked yet.

“It’s shameful that SMART union officials claim to ‘represent’ rank-and-file metal workers while demanding a devastating sum of money from a worker who has clearly exercised his right to refrain from union activities, and doesn’t even work for an employer under their power anymore,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Colorado workers need the protection of a Right to Work law to ensure that employees cannot be required as a condition of employment to fund a union hierarchy that so flagrantly violates workers’ rights.”

Mix continued: “Other Colorado metal workers who have suffered similar malfeasance from SMART union officials should not hesitate to reach out to the National Right to Work Foundation for free assistance in defending their rights.”

Foundation attorneys argue IAM union “opt-out” requirement to escape payment for union officials’ political activities violates Supreme Court’s Janus standard

Washington, DC (May 24, 2021) – Today staff attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation filed a petition for writ of certiorari in United Airlines employee Arthur Baisley’s federal class-action civil rights case, which charges International Association of Machinists (IAM) union bosses with forcing him and his coworkers by default to pay for union political expenditures in violation of the First Amendment and the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

In particular, Baisley challenges a union requirement that employees who choose not to join the union must opt out of funding the union’s political and ideological activities during a brief annual “window period,” or else have money automatically seized from their paychecks for those purposes against their will.

Baisley’s attorneys argue the opt-out arrangement violates workers’ rights under the RLA, and the First Amendment under the standard laid out in the landmark 2018 Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision.

They contend that, under Janus and the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme Court case – both of which were argued at the High Court by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys – no employee can be charged for union political or ideological expenditures without first giving their affirmative and knowing consent, because language from a 1961 case that union lawyers use to prop up “opt out” language was only dicta.

Baisley is not a member of the IAM but is still forced to pay some union fees despite being based in the Right to Work state of Texas. The RLA preempts state Right to Work protections which make union membership and all union financial support strictly voluntary. However, under longstanding law, even without Right to Work protections nonmembers cannot, as a condition of keeping their jobs, be required to pay fees for anything beyond the union’s expenses directly related to bargaining.

Baisley’s petition details the convoluted union boss-created process that workers must navigate just to prevent money from being taken from their paychecks in violation of their First Amendment rights. In Baisley’s situation, even though he sent a letter to IAM agents in November 2018 objecting to funding all union political activities, union officials only accepted his objection for 2019, and told Baisley he had to renew his objection to full dues and fees the next year or else be charged full union dues.

The lawsuit challenges this union-created policy on the grounds that it requires employees to withdraw from paying union fees that they have no legal obligation to pay and thus breaches workers’ First Amendment rights. The complaint also alleges that the IAM’s opt-out requirement violates the RLA, which governs labor in the air and rail industries and protects the right of employees to “join, organize, or assist in organizing” a union of their choice, as well as the right to abstain from all union activities.

Baisley’s lawsuit seeks to strike down the opt-out requirement not only as it is applied to him, but also for his coworkers whose rights are similarly restricted by the IAM’s opt-out policy. Union officials would then be required to get nonmember workers to give affirmative consent to paying for union boss activities beyond the bargaining-related expenses they can legally be required to subsidize under the RLA.

“The sordid goal of these kinds of union ‘opt-out’ requirements is clear: trap unsuspecting workers into subsidizing union bosses’ radical political agenda without their consent and in violation of their constitutional rights,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court ruled in the Foundation-won Janus case that union officials must first seek the affirmative approval of public sector workers before charging them for union politics, and this case simply seeks to ensure that Mr. Baisley and all employees subject to the Railway Labor Act enjoy those same basic protections.”

UFCW union officials demanded employer hand over unique information only about worker who petitioned to oust union, not any coworkers

Selbyville, DE (May 18, 2021) – Delaware Mountaire Farms employee Oscar Cruz Sosa is challenging National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 5’s dismissal of his federal charge against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27 union. Cruz Sosa charged Local 27 officials with illegally surveilling him while he was helping his coworkers exercise their right to vote out the union.

Cruz Sosa submitted a petition in February 2020 signed by hundreds of his coworkers – enough to trigger an NLRB-supervised vote to remove the union (known as a “decertification election”) – but UFCW officials sought to block the vote by claiming that a “contract bar” existed that prevented any election. The “contract bar” is a non-statutory NLRB-concocted policy that forbids workers from voting out unpopular union bosses for up to three years after management and union officials broker a monopoly bargaining contract.

Over the union’s objections, the NLRB Region 5 Director in Baltimore allowed the vote Cruz Sosa and his coworkers requested because he found that the union contract contained an illegal forced-dues clause, and thus the “contract bar” did not apply. However, unwilling to lose power over 800 forced-dues payers in Cruz Sosa’s workplace, UFCW lawyers petitioned the full NLRB to reimpose the “contract bar.” In response, Foundation staff attorneys urged the Board to reform the restriction or eliminate it entirely.

The case was under consideration by the full Board until last month, when it reversed the Regional Director’s months-old ruling that the contract was invalid, kept the controversial “contract bar” in place, and ordered that hundreds of employee ballots cast in the election to remove the unpopular UFCW union bosses be destroyed rather than counted.

While the case was still being litigated, the NLRB issued a complaint against Mountaire Farms in a separate case UFCW union officials filed, which revealed that Mountaire Farms officials had not acquiesced in union officials’ March 2020 demands for “[c]opies of the daily hours of work and the time and attendance records for employee Oscar Cruz Sosa between August 1, 2019 and March 15, 2020.” Cruz Sosa submitted the employee-backed petition for a vote to decertify UFCW union officials in February 2020.

Foundation staff attorneys subsequently filed an unfair labor practice charge for Cruz Sosa, arguing the union’s demands for Cruz Sosa’s private information were an obvious attempt to intimidate and retaliate against him and stymie his and his coworkers’ efforts to exercise their right to vote union bosses out of power.

Cruz Sosa’s Foundation-provided staff attorneys defend that charge in the current appeal, contending that NLRB Region 5’s dismissal of his charge was wrong because “Local 27 had no legitimate representational objective for this information―unless surveilling your decertification opponent (an employee you purport to represent) is now considered ‘legitimate representational activity.’”

The appeal reiterates the intimidating and harassing nature of UFCW officials’ actions, emphasizing “that Local 27 made no similar information requests about any of the 799 other chicken processors employed at Mountaire Farms.”

“UFCW bosses have unequivocally shown that they value maintaining power at the Selbyville Mountaire plant far more than respecting the rights of the employees they claim to represent, whether that entails unlawfully surveilling an employee who is engaging in protected activity or fighting for the destruction of workers’ ballots,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “No American employee should have to go to work thinking that they are being spied on merely for helping their fellow employees exercise their right to resist union power.”

Union officials’ vague letters to workers failed to acknowledge requests to end dues deductions

Washington, DC (May 13, 2021) – Michigan Rieth-Riley Construction Company employees Jesse London and Rob Nevins are appealing to the National Labor Relations Board Office of Appeals their case charging International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 324 union officials with blocking their right to refrain from union financial support.

Their appeal, filed with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, challenges IUOE bosses’ cryptic responses to London’s and Nevins’ requests in early 2020 to resign from the union and stop all dues deductions from their checks.

According to their appeal, IUOE officials responded to both men’s letters in April 2020, acknowledging their resignations but not accepting their dues revocations, instead telling them to refer to copies of their dues authorization forms “with respect to revocation.” Both men assert that they had submitted their requests to terminate dues deductions within a 15-day “window period” for such demands imposed by IUOE officials, and it was unclear what the union bosses’ reply meant.

The appeal also recounts that IUOE bosses mailed a check to each man for roughly $250, though no explanation was given on what the money was for or whether the checks meant that “Local 324 actually had honored their revocations so that roughly $2,100-2,500 in union dues would not be taken out of their” checks later in the year.

The appeal comes after NLRB Region 7 in Detroit, last month, refused to prosecute IUOE Local 324 for the inadequate responses, even though the Region had issued its second amended complaint just a month earlier stating that the union officials’ responses violated London’s and Nevins’ rights.

The rationales given for this reversal included Acting General Counsel Peter Ohr’s rescission of a memo from former NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb. That memo urged NLRB Regional Directors to prosecute unions who didn’t communicate with workers who missed union-imposed “window periods” in their attempts to stop dues deductions. NLRB Region 7 also magically cited “newly submitted evidence” that supposedly obviated London’s and Nevins’ assertions about the insufficiency of the union’s response.

The appeal argues that Ohr’s withdrawal of Robb’s memo is completely irrelevant to the case because Robb’s old memo “only required unions to actually communicate with employees regarding untimely revocation requests,” and London’s and Nevins’ requests were timely.

It also contends that NLRB Region 7 was wholly unspecific when referring to the “newly submitted evidence” from the union. Although this “evidence” presumably was the “two checks with no explanation or cover letter,” the appeal says, that does not “change the fact that Local 324 failed to accept Mr. London’s and Mr. Nevins’ revocations.”

London’s and Nevins’ appeal coincides with Michigan Rieth-Riley workers’ continued effort to safeguard their right to vote IUOE bosses out of their workplace. In February of this year, the NLRB announced that it would hear Rieth-Riley employee Rayalan Kent’s case that he and his coworkers already-cast ballots should be counted, after NLRB Region 7 officials ordered them destroyed based on unproven union “blocking charges.”

The appeal also was submitted amidst Acting NLRB General Counsel Peter Ohr’s continued attempts to undermine Foundation cases brought for workers who seek to free themselves from coercive union boss control. Just weeks after President Biden fired General Counsel Peter Robb before his Senate-confirmed term was over and installed Ohr, Ohr began dismissing complaints against unions that had forced themselves on Foundation-represented workers via coercive “card check” drives. He also began nixing multiple memoranda issued by Robb which drew on Foundation advice.

“So-called ‘Acting’ General Counsel Peter Ohr will have to make a decision: side with Mr. London and Mr. Nevins against clear violations of their right to refrain from financially supporting union bosses, or add both men to the growing list of rank-and-file workers he has betrayed by letting union officials trample their freedoms,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union dues deductions should be completely voluntary, not the result of union boss deception. Foundation staff attorneys will continue to fight to ensure that all Rieth-Riley workers know their ‘no means no’ when it comes to dues deductions.”

Union officials tried to mask forced fees outlawed by Janus Supreme Court decision as “agreement administration fees”

Cincinnati, OH (April 30, 2021) – City of Hamilton employee Timothy Crane has successfully defended his First Amendment right to refrain from funding the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 20 hierarchy in his workplace.

Crane, who is not a union member, filed a lawsuit in December 2020 with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys that challenged so-called “agreement administration fees” that IUOE officials forced him to pay as a condition of keeping his job. Legal documents now confirm that IUOE bosses have backed down from enforcing the deceptive dues scheme and have also refunded to Crane all dues that they seized from him under it.

Crane’s lawsuit maintained that the “agreement administration fee” requirement violated his rights under the Foundation-argued 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. In Janus, the High Court ruled that no public worker can be coerced into paying union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The Court also held that union dues or fees can only be deducted from a public employee’s paycheck if that employee clearly and affirmatively waives his or her constitutional right not to pay. Justice Alito wrote for the Court majority that “such a waiver cannot be presumed” by union or state officials.

According to Crane’s lawsuit, he sent letters to IUOE union officials in both August and September of last year attempting to exercise his First Amendment Janus right to end dues deductions from his paycheck. After sending these two letters, he discovered that an “agreement administration fee” was being taken from his pay by the City at the behest of IUOE union bosses.

The complaint contended that that this fee was just a so-called “agency fee” – a forced union payment charged to employees who refrain from formal union membership that was definitively outlawed by the Janus v. AFSCME decision – masquerading under a different name.

With this victory, Crane’s suit is now the fifth resolved favorably by Foundation staff attorneys for Buckeye State employees who have sought to defend their First Amendment Janus rights from union boss wrongdoing. This includes the July 2020 settlement in the Allen v. AFSCME case, in which nearly 30,000 Ohio public employees were freed from an “escape period” scheme imposed by Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) union chiefs, which limited to just a handful of days every few years the time in which a public employee could exercise his or her Janus rights.

“Once again, a Foundation-backed Ohio public employee has prevailed over a duplicitous attempt by union officials to keep worker money flowing illegally into their pockets while trampling workers’ First Amendment rights,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Any Ohio public workers who are subjected to similar arrangements, or are coerced or intimidated by union bosses in any other way into funding a union agenda against their will should contact the Foundation for free assistance in defending their First Amendment Janus rights.”

Notice given after workers submitted majority-backed petition urging employer to drop union, details right to rebuff likely illegal union strike demands

Philadelphia, PA (April 29, 2021) – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys have issued a special legal notice to drivers, packers, warehouse staff, and other employees at J. Ambrogi Food Distribution (JAF) in West Deptford, New Jersey, affected by an impending strike that may be ordered by Teamsters Local 929 union officials.

The legal notice informs rank-and-file JAF workers of their rights to refuse to abandon their jobs and keep working to support their families despite the union-ordered strike. The notice discusses why workers across the country frequently turn to the National Right to Work Foundation for free legal aid in such situations.

The notice comes after JAF management filed a federal lawsuit against the Teamsters Local 929 union. The lawsuit maintains that the threatened strike order is illegal because the current contract brokered between JAF and union officials prohibits such “work stoppages.” Reports indicate that Teamsters officials have already engaged in aggressive tactics to prevent workers from doing their jobs, including blocking facility entrances and physically preventing individual drivers from unloading cargo, according to that lawsuit.

“This situation raises serious concerns for employees who believe there is much to lose from a union boss-ordered strike,” the notice reads. “Employees have the legal right to rebuff union officials’ strike demands, but it is important for them to be fully informed before they do so.”

The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/ambrogi-legal-notice/.

The strike threat also follows JAF management’s announcement in February that it would withdraw recognition of the Teamsters union in one bargaining unit, after rank-and-file employees submitted a majority-supported petition asking the company do so once the current monopoly bargaining contract expires. A Foundation-won 2019 decision before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) called Johnson Controls permits the process by which employees can petition their employer to end recognition of an unpopular union after the expiration of a contract.

The legal notice outlines the process that JAF employees should follow if they want to exercise their right to return to work during the strike and avoid punishment by union bosses, complete with sample union membership resignation letters.

Further, the notice encourages employees to seek free legal aid from the Foundation if they experience union resistance as they attempt to exercise any of these rights.

“Rather than accept that a majority of employees want nothing to do with their so-called ‘representation,’ Teamsters union bosses are attempting to bully workers into complying with the union’s self-serving strike,” commented National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “With reports of union agents using dishonest and intimidating tactics to coerce workers into abandoning their jobs, rank-and-file JAF employees should immediately contact the Foundation for free legal aid in defending their rights against this coercive Teamsters boss campaign.”

Employee asserts that NJ law’s tiny “escape period” to stop dues deductions violates rights under Janus Supreme Court decision

Trenton, NJ (April 28, 2021) – With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Heather Anderson, an employee of the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, is suing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 33 union and the State of New Jersey for illegally restricting her and her coworkers’ First Amendment right to stop union dues deductions from their paychecks.

The class-action civil rights lawsuit was filed today in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and challenges a New Jersey law that forbids workers from ending financial support for the union except during a tiny 10-day “escape period” once per year. Anderson’s suit says the state-enforced restriction, which union officials endorsed in their contract with the state, violates her and her coworkers’ rights under the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In Janus, the High Court ruled that no public employee can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The Court also held that union dues or fees can only be deducted from a public employee’s paycheck if that employee clearly and affirmatively waives their right not to pay. Justice Alito wrote for the Court majority that “such a waiver cannot be presumed” by union or state officials.

Anderson is challenging New Jersey’s so-called “Workplace Democracy Act” (WDEA), which mandates 10-day “escape periods.” The WDEA was passed only months before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Janus, seemingly in a preemptive attempt by union-allied legislators to limit any rights the Court recognized in Janus to cut off union financial support.

According to her lawsuit, Anderson exercised her Janus rights in February of this year when she informed IBEW union bosses that she wished to terminate dues payments. New Jersey officials rebuffed her request, claiming it could only be accepted if she submitted it within an “escape period” that would not begin until August, and that the state would continue to seize dues from her paycheck until that time. The “escape period” was not mentioned in any dues checkoff authorization card she signed, according to her lawsuit.

Anderson’s lawsuit asks the federal District Court to declare the WDEA’s “escape period” scheme unconstitutional, and seeks refunds of all dues seized from her paycheck in violation of Janus after she invoked her rights.

Across the country, Foundation staff attorneys are currently representing public servants in more than a dozen cases where union officials have tried to confine their First Amendment Janus rights to an “escape period,” and have favorably settled 8 such cases. The pending cases include that of New Jersey public school teachers Susan Fischer and Jeanette Speck, who were trapped in a similar arrangement by New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) union officials.

“The ruling in the Janus decision was crystal clear: public servants have a First Amendment right to refuse to associate with union bosses whose so-called ‘representation’ they oppose,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It is blatantly unconstitutional that the WDEA prevents public workers from exercising their constitutional right for more than 97 percent of the year.”