Legal Aid Lawyer Hits Union and NYLAG With Charges for Religious Discrimination and Labor Law Violations
Employer and union officials ignored request for religious accommodation and seized union dues in violation of lawyer’s Jewish faith
New York, NY (December 9, 2025) – Felicia Gaon, a legal aid attorney for the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), has just filed federal charges against both NYLAG and the Association of Legal Advocates and Attorneys (ALAA)/United Auto Workers (UAW) unions for religious discrimination, failure to accommodate her religion, and unlawful deductions of dues. Gaon maintains that both ALAA and NYLAG officials ignored her requests for a religious accommodation from the requirement that she pay union dues as a condition of her employment. Instead, they illegally seized money from her paycheck without her authorization. Gaon is receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.
Gaon filed parallel sets of charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which prosecutes discrimination in the workplace. Gaon notes in her charges that she is “an Orthodox Jew with strong familial and religious ties to the Nation and Land of Israel” and her faith “prevents [her] from joining or financially supporting a union that directly or indirectly supports the destruction and annihilation of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.” She reports to have never signed any union membership or dues-deduction-authorization documents since beginning work for NYLAG.
UAW Unions and NYLAG Have Obligations to Provide Religious Exemption to Union Dues Payment
New York lacks Right to Work protections for its private-sector employees, meaning that union officials can impose contract provisions that require workers to pay union fees or be fired. However, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates that both union officials and employers provide reasonable accommodations to workers who submit sincere religious objections to financially supporting a labor union. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) also forbids seizing dues money directly from employees’ paychecks without their written authorization.
Gaon’s charges state that, shortly after NYLAG hired her, she submitted a letter to the treasurers of both the ALAA and the UAW “explain[ing] my religious faith and how it prevented me from joining or financially supporting the Unions…My letter also placed NYLAG on notice of my need for a religious accommodation.”
However, her charges note that after Gaon received her first paycheck, “[it] showed that NYLAG had deducted union dues and initiation fees.” Gaon subsequently retained Foundation staff attorneys and sent letters to officials of NYLAG, the UAW, and the ALAA, asking them to refund the money that they illegally seized from her paycheck and to stop all further deductions from her paycheck while her request for a religious accommodation is being processed.
NYLAG Management Illegally Seized Dues Again After Worker Made Valid Request
Aside from a token acknowledgment of her request, Gaon’s charges note that she has not received any other communication from her employer or a union official regarding the religious accommodation. And after she sent her letter, NYLAG once again deducted full union dues from her paycheck. By seizing dues illegally from her wages, Gaon’s charges argue, both union bosses and NYLAG management “discriminated against my religious beliefs” and “failed to accommodate my religion.” Union officials and her employer have never laid out any way in which she can be accommodated going forward.
“Ms. Gaon’s case shows the damaging reality of forced unionism: Union bosses often push extreme and divisive political agendas rather than focus on being constructive and effective in the workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This has horrendous results for religious workers, who often must obtain legal help to battle both union bosses and management to exercise what limited rights they have to disassociate from a union. Even then, current law forces them to be ‘represented’ by union bosses whose ideology they find abhorrent, demeaning, and unconscionable.
“Foundation attorneys have successfully defended many employees and graduate students against being forced to fund union bosses who push positions that violate their beliefs,” Mix added. “Workers should be free to say ‘no’ to funding union bosses they oppose for any reason, religious or otherwise, which is why every American deserves the protection of a Right to Work law.”
Cornell Univ. Graduate Students Hit UE and GSU Unions with Discrimination Charges for Harassing Religious Objectors to Compulsory Unionism
EEOC Charges: Instead of respecting valid requests for religious accommodation, union officials sent harassing “questionnaires” to illegally interrogate students’ beliefs
Ithaca, NY (June 19, 2025) – Two Cornell University graduate students have just slammed the Cornell Graduate Student Union (GSU) and its parent the United Electrical (UE) union with federal antidiscrimination charges. The students, David Rubinstein and Louie Gold, maintain that union officials are illegally harassing graduate students who submit valid religious objections to paying union dues.
Rubinstein and Gold are both Jewish and believe affiliating with or financially supporting the UE unions conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The graduate students filed their charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal representation by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
In their charges, Rubinstein and Gold explain that they are targets of an illegal practice in which UE union officials harass and interrogate religious objectors rather than comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination, including on the basis of religion.
As their charges explain, rather than comply with their valid requests for religious accommodations, UE union bosses instead sent “questionnaires” containing invasive and legally irrelevant questions to religious objectors. The questionnaires include intrusive demands like, “[P]lease include the name and address of the organization sponsoring the [religious] services you attend and the name of the faith leader(s),” and “How long have you had your religious belief?” The end of the questionnaire indicates that union officials may not even respect a student’s religious objection after completion of the form, stating ominously that “The UE national union will review your religious objection upon receipt and may have follow-up questions” (emphasis added).
Union Officials Ignored Students’ Valid Exercise of Religious Freedom
Rubinstein and Gold argue in their charges that they and other students who received this dubious questionnaire already discharged their legal duties when they informed the union of their objections to paying dues. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that objectors must only describe a sincere religious objection to union affiliation, which Rubinstein and Gold both did in letters to the national UE union. Federal law requires union officials to provide a religious accommodation to such objectors. An accommodation often permits the objector to divert an amount of money equal to dues to a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity instead.
“Both nationwide and on the Cornell campus, the UE, CGSU, and their other campus affiliates have been at the forefront of demonizing Israel, seeking its destruction, and supporting Hamas’s violent and barbaric terrorism against Israel and its inhabitants,” the charges read. “The unions had no objective or bona-fide reasons to doubt the basis for my accommodation request or to question my sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices.”
Because New York lacks Right to Work protections, UE and Cornell GSU union officials are enforcing a contract that requires graduate students to pay union dues or fees just to keep their work. While Title VII creates an exception for those like Gold and Rubinstein who have sincere religious objections to union affiliation, Right to Work states provide even more protection by making union membership and financial support a voluntary choice.
Jewish Graduate Students at MIT Forced GSU and UE to Back Off Illegal Dues Practices
Since 2023, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted dozens of Christian and Jewish graduate students across the country in defending their religious freedom from union forced-dues demands – particularly demands from UE union officials. In 2024, five Foundation-backed Jewish graduate students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) scored religious accommodations that allowed them to pay money to pro-Israel charities instead of to the UE union hierarchy. In a related case for another MIT graduate student, Foundation attorneys secured a settlement that required union officials to inform the entire MIT graduate student body (over 3,000) of their rights under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision. Beck permits nonmembers to cut off dues payments for union political or ideological activities.
“This situation at Cornell again shows students and the public at large exactly what GSU and UE union officials’ priorities are: radical political mobilization and agitation, not respecting the individual rights of the students they claim to ‘represent,’” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union bosses may not like it, but federal law is clear that they must comply with valid requests for a religious accommodation based on sincerely held objections to union affiliation, and cannot harass and interrogate those who object to the union’s activities on religious grounds.
“While the battle to preserve the right of religious students and workers to opt out of objectionable union support is certainly important, true reform is needed to ensure that no one is forced to associate with union bosses or their agendas, whether their objection to the union is political, religious, financial, or otherwise,” added Mix.
Dartmouth, MIT, Vanderbilt Graduate Students Challenge Forced Unionism
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Foundation-backed students defend rights as union bosses seek more power at universities
Ben Logsdon is a Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth College. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that union officials’ refusals to accommodate his religious objections just don’t add up.
HANOVER, NH – Just weeks after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys triumphed in anti-discrimination cases for Jewish Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate students who sought to stop forced dues payments to a radically anti-Israel union, union officials began creating other problems for university students.
In nearby New Hampshire, Dartmouth graduate student Benjamin Logsdon sought free Foundation legal aid against Graduate Organized Laborers of Dartmouth (GOLD-UE) union officials. The GOLD union — which is an affiliate of the same United Electrical (UE) union involved in the Foundation’s MIT cases — is forcing Logsdon to accept the union’s monopoly “representation” powers against his will, even after he voiced his religious objections to the union’s radical stances on the conflict against Israel.
Grad Students Exposed to Union Coercion & Privacy Violations
Meanwhile, several graduate students at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, are pushing back against an attempt by Vanderbilt Graduate Workers United (VGWU, an affiliate of United Auto Workers) union bosses to impose union control over them and their colleagues. Specifically, three students are seeking to intervene in a federal case in which VGWU union officials are illegally demanding the university hand over the students’ private information to aid in their unionization campaign. Foundation staff attorneys filed motions for intervention for these students in October 2024.
Foundation attorneys are arguing that union officials severely violate students’ rights in both of these cases. However, the reason that union officials are in power on college campuses at all traces back to flawed rulings from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under both the Obama Administration and Biden Administration. These rulings subject graduate students to pro-Big Labor provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which create issues for students’ freedom both inside and outside the classroom.
Logsdon, a Christian Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth, slammed the GOLD union with federal anti-discrimination charges in September 2024 at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to those charges, shortly after the GOLD union finalized its first monopoly bargaining contract with the Dartmouth administration, he sent a letter to United Electrical General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker explaining that he objected to being affiliated with GOLD on religious grounds and needed an accommodation.
“I sought to be removed from the UE and GOLD-UE bargaining unit as a reasonable accommodation,” Logsdon’s Foundation-backed charges say.
Dinkelaker refused to offer Logsdon an accommodation that “satisf[ied] [his] religious conscience or beliefs,” according to the charges, which violated his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Courts have recognized a variety of Title VII religious accommodations over the years for men and women who have religious objections to union affiliation, including paying an amount equivalent to union dues to a charity instead of union bosses. However, Logsdon seeks a different accommodation: to remove himself from union bosses’ control entirely.
At Vanderbilt, three students who identify themselves in legal documents as “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” and “Jane Doe 1” are contending in their Foundation-backed motions for intervention that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forbids the Vanderbilt administration from disclosing their personal information to any third parties without their permission, including the VGWU union.
At the union’s behest, NLRB Region 10 has already hit the Vanderbilt administration with a pair of subpoenas demanding personal student info, while ignoring objections from several students expressing concern at the disclosure.
So far Vanderbilt has resisted the NLRB’s subpoenas, and fortunately a federal court has temporarily allowed the university to refuse to comply with them.
The Foundation-backed students’ motions to intervene argue that the subpoenas “are an attempt to violate FERPA’s protections, privileging union interests over the graduate students[’] privacy rights.” It also points out that FERPA allows students to seek “protective action” if a university receives a subpoena seeking their personal information, as in this case.
The Vanderbilt students and their Foundation attorneys are demanding an opportunity to properly defend their privacy interests under FERPA. Foundation attorneys have already filed Requests for Review asking the NLRB in Washington, DC, to weigh in on the matter.
Union Monopoly Power Has No Place at Universities
“Graduate students around the country are discovering that union bosses don’t respect their individual rights and would rather use students as pawns to force their demands on a university administration, or advance an extreme political agenda,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.
“Union monopoly bargaining is a system particularly ill-suited to an academic environment. Indeed, it is wrong for anyone to have a union monopoly imposed on them against their will and then be forced to pay union dues under threat of termination.”
Dartmouth Ph.D. Student Hits Graduate Student Union With Federal Charges for Illegal Religious Discrimination
Student opposes union’s anti-Israel activities; charges that union officials refused to provide religious accommodation
Hanover, NH (September 30, 2024) – Benjamin Logsdon, a Ph.D. student in mathematics at Dartmouth College, has slammed the Graduate Organized Laborers of Dartmouth (GOLD-UE) union with federal anti-discrimination charges for failing to accommodate him and his religious beliefs. Logsdon filed the charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Logsdon is a Christian whose sincere religious beliefs put him at odds with GOLD union officials and the radical activity and ideological positions they are promoting. Logsdon’s charges state that he is opposed not only to being forced to pay union dues, but also to GOLD-UE union officials’ monopoly representation powers that affect him as part of the graduate student body.
A series of rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during the Obama and Biden Administrations gave union officials the ability to seize monopoly bargaining power over graduate students, and at private institutions like Dartmouth, unionized graduate students are subject to federal private sector labor law. Such law allows union officials to force those under their power to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment in a state like New Hampshire (where Dartmouth is located) that lacks Right to Work protections.
However, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires union officials to provide religious objectors like Logsdon religious accommodations. While such accommodations vary from case to case, they often free the objector from any further obligation to provide financial support to the union.
Logsdon seeks an accommodation in his case that will free him both from any forced union payments and from being forced to accept the GOLD union’s “representation.”
GOLD Union Officials Fail to Provide Reasonable Accommodation to Religious Objector
According to Logsdon’s charges, shortly after the GOLD union finalized its first monopoly bargaining contract with the Dartmouth administration, he sent a letter to United Electrical (UE, GOLD’s parent union) General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker explaining that he objected to being affiliated with GOLD on religious grounds and needed an accommodation. “I sought to be removed from the UE and GOLD-UE bargaining unit as a reasonable accommodation,” Logsdon’s charges say.
Dinkelaker denied his requested accommodation in an August 30, 2024 message, refusing to offer Logsdon an accommodation that satisfies his sincere religious beliefs. Logsdon’s charges state that the union’s proposal “does not satisfy my religious conscience or beliefs,” and the refusal to accommodate him violates his rights under Title VII.
Foundation Attorneys Recently Scored Victory for Jewish MIT Students in Similar Case
Foundation staff attorneys recently prevailed in a similar batch of cases for five Jewish graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who objected to the anti-Israel activity of the MIT Graduate Student Union on campus (GSU, also an affiliate of UE). Notably, UE General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker similarly refused to provide accommodations to each of those students when asked, telling the students that “no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union.” However, UE officials quickly backed down after Foundation legal involvement.
“Mr. Logsdon is just one of many university students and staff across the country that are appalled by the divisive and inflammatory activity that union bosses have been engaging in, and have called on the Foundation for help in defending their freedom from these union hierarchies,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Union officials shouldn’t be able to manipulate their forced-dues and forced-representation powers to make graduate students choose between keeping their academic positions and honoring their sincere religious beliefs.
“As the political and ideological temperature skyrockets at college campuses, the frequency of these stories is unfortunately likely to continue growing across the country. We encourage those on college campuses who seek to protect their religious freedom from union boss coercion to contact the Foundation for free legal aid,” Mix added.
Security Guard Wins Groundbreaking ‘Janus’ Religious Accommodation
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, July/August 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
À la Janus, religious objector to union affiliation is free from all forced payments
The landmark Janus SCOTUS case, argued by Foundation Legal Director William Messenger, profoundly strengthened public employees’ First Amendment rights. But it appears the impact of the case is just beginning.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have been trailblazers in scoring legal protections for independent-minded workers who oppose joining or paying dues to a union on religious grounds. Over the years, Foundation attorneys have helped workers from a variety of faiths secure religious accommodations to forced-dues payment.
Earlier this year, Foundation attorneys achieved a breakthrough in this area of the law. In their case for Thomas Ross, a San Francisco-based employee of security company Allied Universal who sought a faith-based exemption from paying dues to a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) affiliate, Foundation attorneys won an unprecedented settlement. It not only frees Ross from any requirement to pay dues or fees to the union, but also frees him from any obligation to pay an amount equivalent to dues to a charity, which has been the dominant form of accommodation in the past for religious objectors.
Union Demanded Religious Worker Violate Faith, Breaking Federal Laws
Ross is a Christian who opposes union affiliation on religious grounds. Ross informed both the SEIU union and Allied Universal when he was hired in 2020 that his religious beliefs disallowed union membership and that he needed an accommodation. In addition to ignoring that request, in 2022 his employer told him that union membership was mandatory and “demanded that [he] sign a payroll deduction, join the [union], and pay union dues,” according to filings in his case.
Ross fought back by filing federal discrimination charges against the union and Allied Universal at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as by filing unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires unions and employers to accommodate religious objections to union payments. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits mandatory union membership, even in non-Right to Work states like California.
Ross’ Foundation-backed legal battle against SEIU and Allied Universal continued into 2023, when Foundation attorneys appealed a specious NLRB decision which attempted to dispose of the issue as a mere administrative error on the employer’s part. Finally, in 2024, the SEIU and Allied Universal backed down and settled the case, conceding a full religious accommodation to Ross.
The terms of the settlement state that Allied Universal and SEIU “will not enforce the collective bargaining agreement’s union membership and fee provisions against Ross . . . [and] will not force Ross to pay any union fees while he is employed by Allied Universal.”
In an article in the Baylor Law Review following the settlement, Foundation attorneys Bruce Cameron and Blaine Hutchison argue that, in light of the Foundation’s landmark 2018 Supreme Court victory in Janus v. AFSCME, religious accommodations like Ross’ should be the standard for future cases involving religious objectors to union membership and dues payment. In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits forcing public sector employees to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment.
Janus Shows Right Way to Accommodate Religious Employees
The article points out that the Supreme Court in Janus knocked down the so-called “free-rider” and “labor-peace” arguments that union lawyers typically use to justify forcing religious objectors to pay dues money to a charity. In Janus, the article explains, “The Court showed that nonmembers need not pay fees to compensate the union or to prevent labor unrest.”
The payment-to-charity scheme simply “punishes individuals for following their faith,” the article says. “Janus shows the proper solution: religious objectors need not pay any forced union fees.”
“Mr. Ross fought bravely with help from Foundation attorneys, and has opened up a new horizon for religious employees across the country,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The idea that union officials can force religious objectors to make any kind of payment clearly runs counter to America’s core ideals of freedom of religion and freedom of association, and it’s high time that courts recognize more robust protections for those rights.
“However, it’s important to recognize that, regardless of whether an employee’s objection to union affiliation is religious in nature or not, no American worker should ever be forced to subsidize union activities they oppose,” Mix added.
Jewish MIT Graduate Students Force Anti-Israel Union to Abandon Discriminatory Demands for Dues Payment
Settlement includes requirement that GSU union inform 3,000+ students of their right to refrain from paying for radical union political activities
Boston, MA (August 21, 2024) – Several Jewish graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have prevailed in their legal cases to cut off financial support to the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU), an affiliate of the United Electrical (UE) union. The students, all of whom received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, objected to GSU union officials’ anti-Israel activities, particularly their support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections that make union membership and financial support voluntary, union officials at unionized private colleges like MIT can force graduate students to financially support a union under threat of losing their academic positions and work. However, this power is subject to limitations under federal anti-discrimination law and some Supreme Court decisions.
Foundation staff attorneys litigated federal charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March for William Sussman, Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Adina Bechhofer, and Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky, each of which stated that the union had demanded full dues payments even after they had each stated their religious objection to funding the union and asked for an accommodation as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such accommodations vary, but often take the form of letting the objector divert the dues from the offensive union to a 501(c)(3) charity instead.
Shortly after those filings, Foundation staff attorneys also filed federal unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Katerina Boukin, who objected on political grounds to the GSU’s ideological activity and sought to exercise her rights under the Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision. In Beck, the Court ruled that union officials cannot force those who opt out of formal union membership (like Boukin) to pay dues or fees for union expenses not directly related to collective bargaining, even in a non-Right to Work state. GSU bosses denied Boukin’s Beck request on the specious grounds that she had missed a short union-concocted “window period” in which such an objection would be accepted.
Settlement Blocks Union Bosses from Using Student Money to Support Extremism
The students have now won a favorable NLRB settlement, and a favorable outcome of the EEOC charges, that fully vindicate their rights. The students who voiced religious objections (Sussman, Fried, Gordon, Bechhofer, and Zhitomirsky) have obtained accommodations under which they will pay no money to the union and will instead pay money to charities of their choice, despite initial pushback from union bosses. The charities include American Friends of Magen David Adom and American Friends of Leket.
Foundation attorneys scored for Katerina Boukin a settlement that will require GSU bosses to inform the entire MIT graduate student body of their rights to invoke the Beck decision. GSU bosses must declare by email that they will not restrict the ability of those who resign their union memberships to cut off dues payments for political expenses and pay a reduced amount to the union. This email notice will go out to approximately 3,000 MIT students.
The Jewish students’ efforts to assert their rights put on display the radicalism of GSU union officials. The students who asserted religious objections to supporting the union initially received form letters as responses to their requests, which callously claimed that “no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union” and that no religious conflict existed because the founder of GSU’s parent union was himself Jewish. Through the Foundation-backed litigation, the students’ religious objections to supporting GSU were accommodated.
MIT Students Expose GSU Misdeeds to Congress & Nation
Both Will Sussman and Katerina Boukin publicly commented on how the GSU union’s public image was synonymous with political extremism and had little to do with academics. Boukin stated that she was deeply offended by the union’s “opposition to Israel and promotion of Leninist-Marxist global revolution” and that “[t]he GSU’s political agenda has nothing to do with my research as a graduate student at MIT, or the relationships I have with my professors and the university administration, yet outrageously they demand I fund their radical ideology.”
In July, Will Sussman appeared before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce to reveal even more details about his and his colleagues’ distressing experience with the GSU union. As Sussman testified, after the October 7 attacks on Israel, GSU union representatives voiced support for Hamas’ bloody “rebellion” and the GSU Vice President was even arrested for her behavior at an anti-Israel protest. “She was banned from campus but remains on [dues-funded] paid ‘union leave,’” Sussman stated.
“The Foundation-backed MIT graduate students who fought these legal battles have earned well-deserved victories. But defending basic free association rights shouldn’t require such lengthy litigation, and meaningful reforms are necessary to ensure union support is truly voluntary,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Forcing GSU union officials to abandon their blatantly discriminatory dues practices is only the tip of the iceberg: Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections, GSU still has the power to force the vast majority of MIT graduate students to subsidize some portion of their activities.
“Foundation attorneys are continuing to provide legal aid for all those who challenge the imposition of radical union agendas at places such as the University of Chicago, Dartmouth, and Johns Hopkins, and they are doing so for adherents of both Judaism and Christianity. But this ordeal at MIT should remind lawmakers that all Americans should have a right to protect their money from going to union bosses they don’t support, whether those objections are based on religion, politics, or any other reason,” Mix added.
Grand Rapids GE Worker Slams UAW Union Officials with Federal Charges After Being Terminated for Refusing Membership
In months following repeal of Michigan Right to Work law, workers across the state are standing up to oppose union coercion
Grand Rapids, MI (July 30, 2024) – Richard Howard, an employee at General Electric (GE) Aviation Systems’ Grand Rapids facility, has slammed his employer and United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 330 union officials with two sets of federal charges. He maintains that union officials illegally instigated his termination after he refused to become a formal union member.
Howard’s charges come as Michigan workers increasingly seek to challenge union bosses’ legal powers in the wake of Michigan’s repeal of its Right to Work law. The repeal, which became effective this February, re-granted union officials the privilege to demand workers pay union dues or fees just to keep a job. So far this year, Foundation staff attorneys have already filed more than twice as many cases to defend Michigan workers’ rights than through all of 2023.
Howard filed his federal Unfair Labor Practice charges at Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Detroit with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Because Howard’s reasons for wanting to dissociate from the union stemmed from his Christian beliefs, something he had made clear when objecting to demands that he sign a union card, he also filed anti-discrimination charges against the UAW and GE with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Howard’s charges state that, after the Right to Work repeal became effective, both GE and UAW agents told Howard and his colleagues that “they had 60 days to become Union members, sign dues checkoffs, and pay full dues to the Union.” Howard knew that union membership couldn’t be compulsory even in a non-Right to Work environment, but many conversations he had with officials of the union and GE about other options proved fruitless.
The NLRB is the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law in the private sector. Even in states like Michigan that lack Right to Work protections, and allow for forced-fee requirements, longstanding federal law under cases like General Motors v. NLRB prevents union bosses from requiring workers to become formal union members. The Foundation-won Communications Workers of America v. Beck Supreme Court decision additionally forbids union bosses in non-Right to Work states from forcing workers who refrain from union membership to pay money for any activities beyond the union’s bargaining functions, such as political expenditures.
For religious objectors to union activity, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires union officials to attempt to accommodate such workers. While Title VII accommodations take different forms from case to case, they generally eliminate any obligation the worker has to pay dues money directly to the union. One common accommodation is permitting a worker to pay an amount equivalent to dues or fees to a charity.
“I have repeatedly voiced my objections to the UAW and everything they stand for, including my religious objections to the union’s political activity. My rights may be limited due to the repeal of Michigan’s Right to Work law, but the union has acted like they don’t exist at all,” Howard said. “It is shameful that rather than respect my religious freedom and other workplace rights, the union instigated my firing.”
GE, UAW Wrongly Told Worker Membership Was Required
Howard’s charges describe how union and company officials stonewalled him when he asked about what options he had to opt out of the union: “Everyone he spoke to in both the Employer’s management and the Union told him that he was required to sign the union membership and dues deduction authorization card or he would be terminated and that he had no other options.” Even offers by Howard to pay a reduced amount of union dues as a nonmember (as per Beck) or pay money to a charity as a religious objector were rebuffed.
Finally, during an April meeting Howard had with GE and UAW agents, both parties threatened that he would be fired if he did not sign a union membership form and dues deduction authorization form within six days. Six days after the meeting, GE terminated Howard, and UAW union officials refused to file a grievance for him challenging the termination.
Worker Seeks Federal Injunction After Unlawful Union-Instigated Firing
Howard’s NLRB charges argue that the employer’s and union’s threats to fire him and the firing itself violated his right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to refrain from union activity. The charges also contend that UAW officials never informed him in writing of exactly what his obligations were before demanding his firing, a violation of the NLRB’s Philadelphia Sheraton Corp. precedent. The NLRB charges finally request that the NLRB seek a federal court order telling GE and UAW to immediately cease the illegal activity, something known as a “10(j) injunction”.
Howard’s EEOC charges state that both UAW and GE officials have failed to accommodate him or even consider his religious objection (as required by Title VII) and have ignored or shot down every attempt by him to seek an accommodation.
“The flurry of new cases that Foundation staff attorneys are litigating for Michigan workers shows that, post-Right to Work repeal, union bosses aren’t stopping at re-imposing their forced-dues legal power on workers. They seem to view the repeal as a license to force workers to associate with them in any way possible,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “As these recent cases demonstrate, Michigan workers deserve more freedom from union boss coercion – not less – and Michigan workers aren’t going to let their freedoms go without a fight.
“Workers may have any number of reasons for wanting to withhold their money from a union – religious reasons, financial reasons, or just because they believe union officials aren’t doing a good job,” Mix added. “That’s why the voluntarism of Right to Work is so important, and why every American worker deserves such protections.”
MIT Grad Students Slam Union with Federal Discrimination Charges
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union hierarchy forcing students to pay dues, deny legally-required religious exemption
When Will Sussman declared his religious beliefs forbade him from supporting a union engaged in anti-Israel causes, GSU officials shamelessly (and illegally) went on demanding his money.
BOSTON, MA – “First, no principles, teachings, or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union . . . Secondly, the statements in your letter demonstrate that your objection to paying dues is based on your political views and not your religious belief.”
This was the brazen response of United Electrical (UE) union officials to five Jewish graduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who sought legally-required religious accommodations to the forced payment of dues to the Graduate Student Union (GSU, an affiliate of UE). The students, William Sussman, Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Adina Bechhofer, and Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky see funding the union as a violation of their Jewish faith due to, among other reasons, the union’s vocal support for the anti-Israel “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) movement.
GSU Union, MIT Failed to Provide Religious Accommodations
“Jewish graduate students are a minority. We cannot remove our union, and we cannot talk them out of their antisemitic position — we’ve tried,” explained Sussman in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the situation. “That is why many of us asked for a religious accommodation. But instead of respecting our rights, the union told me they understand my faith better than I do.”
The students are now fighting back with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. In March, they each filed federal discrimination charges against UE and GSU with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), declaring that the union is “discriminating against me based on a failure to accommodate my religious beliefs and cultural heritage” and “discriminating against me based on national origin, race, cultural heritage, & identity.”
Because MIT officials are involved in enforcing GSU union bosses’ forced-dues demands on the students, Foundation attorneys also sent a letter to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, notifying her of the EEOC charges and warning that the university will face similar charges if it does not promptly remedy the situation.
The graduate students are only subject to the union’s forced-dues demands as a result of a controversial Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling, now being enforced by the Biden Labor Board, that deems graduate students at private universities to be “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act. As a result, the MIT graduate students are subjected to the GSUUE’s monopoly union control.
Foundation Attorneys Have Track Record of Defending Religious Objectors
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections, union officials in the private sector (which includes private educational institutions like MIT) generally have the power to compel those under their monopoly bargaining power to pay union dues or fees. However, as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious accommodations to payment of dues or fees must be provided to those with sincere religious objections.
For decades, Foundation staff attorneys have successfully represented religious objectors in cases opposing forced dues. While religious accommodations in these cases have varied, all of them forbid union bosses from demanding the worker pay any more money to the union.
Union Already Conceded Some Illegal Dues Practices
Sussman already dealt a blow against GSU officials in late February, when he forced union officials to settle federal charges he filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning the union’s dues demands. In those charges, Sussman asserted his rights under the Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which prevents union officials from forcing those under their control to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions.
While the settlement required GSU union officials to send an email to all students under their control stating that they would now follow Beck, Sussman and his fellow students’ current EEOC charges seek to cut off all financial support to the controversial union, as is their right under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“GSU union officials appear blinded by their political agenda and their desire to extract forced dues,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Their idea of ‘representation’ apparently includes forcing Jewish graduate students to pay money to a union the students believe has relentlessly denigrated their religious and cultural identity.
“GSU union bosses’ refusal to grant these students religious accommodations is as illegal as it is unconscionable, and Foundation attorneys will fight for their freedom from this tyrannical union hierarchy,” Mix added.
Jewish MIT Graduate Students Slam BDS-Linked Union with Federal Discrimination Charges
Students assert their rights under Civil Rights Act by requesting religious exemptions from funding union, but union officials continue to demand dues payments
Boston, MA (March 21, 2024) – Graduate students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have filed federal discrimination charges against the United Electrical Workers (UE) and MIT Graduate Students Union (GSU), stating that union officials have illegally denied their requests for religious accommodations to the forced payment of union dues. The students submitted their charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
The students, William Sussman, Joshua Fried, Akiva Gordon, Tamar Kadosh Zhitomirsky, and Adina Bechhofer, are Jewish and conduct various research activities for professors at MIT. For example, Sussman is earning his PhD in Computer Science at MIT. He is also President of MIT Graduate Hillel, is a member of the MIT Israel Alliance, and has family in Israel.
The university students object to the union’s anti-Semitic advocacy, including the union’s endorsement of the anti-Israel “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) movement. Each of the EEOC charges state that the union is “discriminating against me based on a failure to accommodate my religious beliefs and cultural heritage” and “discriminating against me based on national origin, race, cultural heritage & identity.”
The students sent individual letters asserting their religious objections to supporting the union and asserting their rights to religious accommodations, but union officials brazenly rejected each request and continue to demand dues from the students.
Union officials’ form letter denying the students’ requested religious accommodations explained Judaism to these Jewish students, callously claiming “no principles, teachings or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union.” The union also attempted to justify its position on the grounds that a founder of GSU’s parent union was himself Jewish.
“Jewish graduate students are a minority. We cannot remove our union, and we cannot talk them out of their antisemitic position — we’ve tried,” said Sussman. “That is why many of us asked for a religious accommodation. But instead of respecting our rights, the union told me they understand my faith better than I do.”
Religious Accommodations Are Required Under Title VII
Because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections, union officials in the private sector (which includes private educational institutions like MIT) generally have the power to compel those under their monopoly bargaining power to pay union dues or fees. However, as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious accommodations to payment of dues or fees must be provided to those with sincere religious objections.
For decades, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have successfully represented religious objectors in cases opposing forced dues. While religious accommodations in these cases have varied, all of them forbid union bosses from demanding the worker pay any more money to the union.
If the EEOC finds merit to the students’ charges of discrimination, the agency will either take legal action against the union itself, or will issue a “right to sue” letter to the students, which will entitle them to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the union in federal court. Because MIT has a contract with this union and is also involved in enforcing the union’s dues demands on the students, Foundation attorneys sent a letter to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, notifying her of the EEOC charges and warning that the university will face similar charges if it does not promptly remedy the situation. MIT is already under fire in Congress and elsewhere due to its treatment of Jewish students in the face of widespread harassment.
Jewish Grad Student Already Won Federal Labor Board Case Against GSU Union Related to Dues
Sussman already dealt a blow against GSU officials in late February, when he forced union officials to settle federal charges he filed at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning the union’s dues demands. In those charges, Sussman invoked his right under the Right to Work Foundation-won CWA v. Beck Supreme Court decision, which prevents union officials from forcing those under their control to pay dues for anything beyond the union’s core bargaining functions.
While the settlement required GSU union officials to send an email to all students under their control stating that they would now follow Beck, Sussman and his fellow students’ current EEOC case seeks to cut off all financial support to the union, as is their right under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
“GSU union officials appear blinded by their political agenda and their desire to extract forced dues,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Their idea of ‘representation’ apparently includes forcing Jewish graduate students to pay money to a union the students believe has relentlessly denigrated their religious and cultural identity, all during a time when anti-Semitism is ripping across our nation and world.
“GSU union bosses’ refusal to grant these students religious accommodations is as illegal as it is unconscionable, and Foundation attorneys will fight for their freedom from this tyrannical union hierarchy,” Mix added.
Teen Supermarket Cashier Fired for Refusing to Join and Fund UFCW Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Union officials required teen to violate his religious beliefs or be fired
Josiah Leonatti may be young, but he’s not afraid to stand up to UFCW bosses, who got him fired over objecting to union membership and dues on religious grounds.
PITTSBURGH, PA – Josiah Leonatti, a high schooler, was fired last year for his religious beliefs. Giant Eagle and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union compel employees, like Leonatti, to either join or fund the union to keep their jobs. The problem for Leonatti is that he cannot do so without compromising his religious beliefs.
When Leonatti was hired, he never expected that union bosses would force him to choose between his job and his religious convictions. But the union officials did just that.
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, Leonatti hit UFCW union officials and Giant Eagle in January with federal discrimination charges. Although Giant Eagle rehired Leonatti to limit liability, neither Giant Eagle nor the union agreed to accommodate his religious beliefs. So Leonatti faces discharge, again, unless he funds the union.
Moreover, the union demands that Leonatti submit to an illegal “religion test.” Before the company and union will consider accommodation, they demand that Leonatti answer irrelevant and inappropriate questions to determine whether his religious beliefs are valid.
UFCW Bosses Tried to Get Teen Fired After He Voiced Religious Objections
Foundation attorneys filed charges for Leonatti against the union at both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) based on federal law. Foundation attorneys also filed charges against Leonatti’s employer, Giant Eagle.
Federal law requires unions and employers to accommodate employees who have religious objections to joining or paying dues to a union. And federal law also prohibits forced union membership regardless of a worker’s reason for not wanting to affiliate with a union.
Leonatti’s charges report that he attended employee training last year as a cashier trainee. There, a store manager told new hires that they “must sign papers to join the United Food And Commercial Workers.” According to the NLRB charges, “No other options were even hinted at.”
After reviewing the papers with his family, Leonatti’s charges explain, he mailed a letter to UFCW officials detailing his sincere religious objections to joining and supporting the union. He also presented the same letter in person at training.
Rather than accommodate his religious beliefs as required by law, a company official “dismissed [Leonatti] from training and sent [him] home.” The same official later called Leonatti and told him that union membership is compulsory at Giant Eagle, and admitted the grocery store had terminated him over his refusal to join.
UFCW officials responded to Leonatti’s letter by mail on November 10, 2022, rejecting the written explanation of his religious objection and demanding he “complete its religious examination” before they even considered granting him an accommodation. Even if he passed this “test,” the charges say, union officials threatened that he would still have to pay an amount equal to full UFCW union dues to a charity approved by union bosses. Giant Eagle has not offered a religious accommodation to Leonatti, and the union has not retracted its threats or agreed to accommodate him.
Teen’s Firing Shows Need for Pennsylvania Right to Work Protections
Leonatti’s EEOC charges seek to compel the UFCW union and Giant Eagle to provide him a legally required religious accommodation. In addition, the NLRB charges state that relief must include unitwide notice and corporate training regarding workers’ right to refrain from union membership, among other remedies.
“Union bosses’ attempt to coerce a high school student to violate his religious beliefs is unconscionable and illegal,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “We’re proud to support Mr. Leonatti as he defends his rights and beliefs. This should serve as a stark reminder that all Americans deserve Right to Work protections.”
“If Pennsylvania were a Right to Work state, Leonatti wouldn’t be forced to present his religious objections to expectedly hostile union chiefs,” Semmens added. “In a Right to Work state, he and other dissenting employees would have a statutorily protected right to cut off dues payments for any reason. All employees deserve the right to choose whether to fund a union.”
