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.

Safeway Employee Hits Union with Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit for Religious Discrimination

**Seattle, WA (May 4, 2006)** – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a Safeway employee filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union for maintaining a discriminatory policy intended to deter workers in King and Kitsat counties from exercising their religious freedoms.

Daniel Gautschi, manager in a Safeway meat department, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington after union officials set forth conditions that force him to affiliate with – and pay additional money to – a union he finds morally offensive if he should ever have an employment grievance.

UFCW Local 81 union officials allowed the forwarding of Gautschi’s forced union dues (paid as a condition of employment) to a charity – an accommodation previously won by Foundation attorneys under federal law. However, they continue to maintain an illegal scheme intended to deter employees from exercising their right to assert religious objections in the first place. The scheme forces only employees who file 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.

On October 17, 2005, Gautschi filed charges (also with free legal aid from Foundation attorneys) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC issued a letter to Gautschi dated March 8 advising him he has the right to institute a civil action in federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“Union officials want employees of faith to shut up and pay up,” said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Employees should not be forced to choose between honoring their faith and exercising their workplace rights.”

Under Title VII, 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 accept the funds.

Gautschi’s lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction barring the UFCW union from discriminating against him on the basis of religion, as well as an order that the union inform all employees under the monopoly bargaining agreement that those with religious objections need not additionally reimburse the union for any costs associated with grievance processing. Union officials demanded and received total monopoly control over the grievance process. Nevertheless, they seek to force religious objectors – but not others covered by the monopoly bargaining agreement – to pay large sums of money to the union if they have a grievance in the workplace.

Knoxville, TN (February 3, 2006) – In a significant procedural victory, the Supreme Court of Tennessee has cleared the way for a circuit court trial in a case in which a Tennessee teacher is asserting that full union members have the right to withhold union dues spent on ideological activity without losing their right to vote on the collective bargaining agreements that bind them. With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys, Dewey Esquinance filed suit against the Polk County Education Association (PCEA) and Tennessee Education Association (TEA) unions, affiliates of the National Education Association (NEA), in April 2003 in the Circuit Court of Polk County. After the Court of Appeals of Tennessee agreed with arguments made by Foundation attorneys that the trial court improperly dismissed the lawsuit, the state’s highest court rejected a union petition for review – clearing the way for a full investigation and trial. As a result, Esquinance will be able to make his case in the Tennessee Circuit Court of Polk County that teachers statewide have the constitutional right to remain full union members and withhold dues spent on union political activities with which they disagree. Union officials currently require teachers to exercise their rights under Tennessee’s Right to Work law to resign from union membership in order to stop the use of their dues money for objectionable political activities. In doing so, however, those teachers are barred by union officials from voting on ratification of collective bargaining agreements that determine the terms of their employment, control sick bank donations, and affect access to teacher training. “This ruling shuts down teacher union officials’ desperate, last-ditch attempt to prevent a full investigation into their practice of spending teachers’ dues on politics,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. In September 2002, Esquinance joined the PCEA union and began paying full union dues, even though he objected to the NEA union’s political agenda. When Esquinance notified union officials that he wanted to remain a full union member but only pay for union expenses related to collective bargaining, union officials informed him that his union membership was terminated and that there was no appeals process. Like many educators, Esquinance objects to numerous aspects of the union’s agenda for religious and political reasons, including the NEA’s stances promoting abortion, gun control, and special rights for homosexuals. Every year, the NEA and its affiliates spend tens of millions of dollars in compulsory dues in support of political views and candidates that many teachers find objectionable. Esquinance is challenging union membership dues based on the rights established by the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Under Abood and subsequent rulings, employees have a constitutional right to refuse to pay for union non-collective bargaining activities, such as politics.

Lynnwood, WA (January 27, 2006) - To avoid costly and embarrassing federal court litigation for religious discrimination, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3035 union officials begrudgingly agreed to honor the right of a City of Lynwood employee to have his monthly union fees re-directed to charity because supporting the union violates his sincere religious convictions. With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Paul Coffelt, a civil engineer with the City of Lynwood, filed religious discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in August, 2005, against the AFSCME union and the city for forcing him to pay dues to the union to keep his job. As a Mormon, Coffelt finds that the manner in which the union deals with his employer is inconsistent with his religious beliefs. Coffelt filed the religious discrimination charges because, after communicating his objection to the collection of forced dues to the union and the city in February, 2005, AFSCME union officials and his employer failed to provide him with proper accommodation. The settlement, which was recently brokered by the EEOC, confirms Coffelt's right to re-direct all future forced union dues to a mutually agreed-upon charity. In addition, the estimated $700 in AFSCME forced union dues that were deducted from Coffelt's paychecks since the date of his objection will also be forwarded to charity. "It's outrageous for union bosses to demand that a government employee put allegiance to a radical union hierarchy ahead of his religious faith," said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "This settlement highlights AFSCME union officials' general lack of respect for independent-minded workers." 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 accommodate the employee - most often by designating a mutually acceptable charity to accept the funds. Coffelt has chosen to re-direct his forced union dues to the United Way of Snohomish County.

Atlanta, Ga. (September 21, 2005) - National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have filed charges on behalf of a telephone worker against his employer, BellSouth Telecommunications, and its union for forcing him to wear a union logo as a job condition. In doing so, company and union officials are directly defying a 2005 U.S. Court of Appeals decision which ruled that their policy is unlawful. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously overturned a controversial Clinton-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that approved the practice of forcing both union and non-union BellSouth employees to wear union insignia on their work uniforms or be fired from their jobs. After issuing its decision, the Court of Appeals took the rare step of ordering the NLRB to pay attorneys fees because their erroneous decision had not been substantially justified. In defiance of the appellate court’s ruling, Communications Workers of America (CWA) union officials continue to insist, despite the objections of BellSouth employee Gary Mullis, that he wear their logo as a condition of employment. Mullis, who is not a member of the CWA union, was informed in May by BellSouth that he would not be allowed to refrain from wearing the union insignia. Mullis objects to wearing the logo because the union pursues political objectives that do not represent his views. His charges seek the prosecution of the company and union for unfair labor practices. “Workers should not be forced to be walking billboards for union officials who seek to trample their own freedoms,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The repeated abusive actions of the CWA hierarchy and BellSouth management raise serious questions about their integrity and respect for the law.” The appellate court’s 3-0 decision overturning the unlawful policy concurred with Foundation attorneys’ arguments that provisions of the National Labor Relations Act embodied a “right to refrain from wearing union insignia.” The court rejected union and company lawyers’ claims that the display of the union patch alongside the company logo on the uniform was so integral to the “public image” of BellSouth that the mandate superceded the individual rights of workers. The court noted that there was no evidence that the union patch projected a positive image to customers, and that it could, in fact, signal a negative image to customers who could conclude that strikes and service interruptions were more likely to occur. However, regardless of what image was projected to customers, the court explained that proper analysis should have been what the requirement signaled to employees – that the company and union expect employees to be union members. The court ruled that this restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to refrain from union membership.

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (August 18, 2005) – A Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with arguments made by lawyers for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation that imposing monopoly collective bargaining on Brother Rice High School, a private Catholic school, would entangle labor laws with the religious freedoms of the teachers and the school itself. Three judges issued a joint “per curiam” opinion this week overturning a precedent-setting Michigan Employment Relations Commission’s (MERC) ruling that Catholic schools somehow fall under Michigan’s compulsory collective bargaining laws. If the MERC had not been overturned, union officials were expected to forcibly unionize numerous other religious institutions. The dismissal of the claim by the Michigan Educators Association (MEA) is a victory for both religious independence and teacher freedom. The MEA was targeting teachers at the Brother Rice High School for forced unionization. The Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief for the Acton Institute, a religious liberty public policy group, in support of Brother Rice. “It would be unconscionable to force religious schools to bargain with union officials who have an agenda that runs afoul of the teachings of the Catholic Church,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “At the same time, teachers should not be forced to accept the representation of union officials whose agenda they may believe to be morally reprehensible.” The Foundation brief demonstrated that Catholic Church doctrine and the ideology of the MEA union are incompatible, and that Michigan state law was not written in a way to include Brother Rice in the jurisdiction of union representation and state regulation. Ultimately the appeals court agreed that Michigan state law should be interpreted so that parochial schools are not placed under the jurisdiction of state labor laws. Foundation attorneys argued that giving MERC oversight of collective bargaining agreements could lead to the MEA using collective bargaining to highjack the religious teaching process and allow the MEA’s radical political agenda to influence the religious instruction given by Brother Rice teachers. Additionally, because hiring practices at the school necessarily involve religious beliefs, an MEA victory would have meant that the state would be forced to pass judgment upon church doctrine to determine whether the school’s refusal to bargain over certain terms of employment is legitimately based on religious belief.