3 Mar 2026

Public Servants Across Country Stand Strong in Defending Janus Rights

Posted in Newsletter Articles

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2026 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Jose Ramos, a University of Puerto Rico maintenance employee, isn’t going to let union bosses maintain their flimsy defense that they are entitled to keep his hard-earned money in violation of the First Amendment.

As 2025 waned, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys brought their expertise to bear as government employees in Washington State and Puerto Rico continued legal battles to get back money that union bosses never should have seized from their paychecks.

These workers are invoking their rights under the Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, which the Supreme Court handed down in 2018. In Janus, the Justices ruled that all American public sector workers have a First Amendment right to abstain from paying dues to union officials they don’t support.

Despite Janus’ commonsense protections, many union bosses, intent on keeping their coffers stocked with dues money seized from unwilling public employees, are still trying to skirt the Court’s ruling.

AFSCME Bosses Refuse to Return Illegally-Seized Money to Worker

That includes AFSCME union officials in Washington State, whom City of Everett employee Xenia Davidsen is fighting at the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). Davidsen charged AFSCME chiefs with accepting money that City officials had illicitly funneled from her paycheck to the union.

Davidsen had requested dues deductions to stop in 2024 in accordance with Janus, but City officials failed to monitor the email address through which AFSCME directed the City to stop the deductions. This incompetence led to the City seizing dues money from Davidsen at least 12 times without her authorization — and AFSCME union officials have stubbornly refused to admit they must post a notice stating they were wrong to accept the deductions.

“On none of those… instances did the Union stop to question why it was accepting dues that it knew were unauthorized to it,” argue Foundation attorneys in Davidsen’s latest brief before the PERC.

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys also defended the Janus rights of two groups of Puerto Rico public employees in oral arguments before the First Circuit Court of Appeals last October.

Foundation Challenges Puerto Rico Court’s Refusal to Nix Anti-Janus Statute

In one case, Cruz v. UIA, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) employee Reynaldo Cruz is trying to reclaim union dues money that officials of the Authentic Independent Union of Water and Sewer Authority Employees (UIA) took in violation of his First Amendment rights.

Cruz’s lawsuit challenges both union bosses’ demands that he pay union dues or lose his job, as well as the Puerto Rico territorial laws that allow such unconstitutional demands. Though UIA union bosses claim they have already deposited the illegally-seized money with a lower federal court, that court confusingly declined to issue a ruling that legally entitles Cruz to collect the funds.

During oral arguments, Cruz’s legal team argued that this legal sleight-of-hand created “a roadmap for civil rights defendants to violate civil rights plaintiffs’ rights.”

Foundation Won’t Let Union Bosses & Bureaucrats Ignore Janus

Also argued before the First Circuit at the end of 2025 was Ramos v. Delgado, in which Foundation attorneys represent Jose Ramos and other University of Puerto Rico maintenance employees who had dues illegally deducted from their paychecks for years.

Ramos and his colleagues are seeking refunds of all dues taken unlawfully since the Janus decision. Puerto Rico continues to be a hotbed for union violations of the Janus decision, but luckily, workers continue to stand up with Foundation legal aid.

Most recently, public employee Luis Rigau filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the Puerto Rico Industrial Commission (PRIC) union’s blatantly illegal reinstatement of automatic forced-dues deductions against nonmembers.

“Despite Janus’ clear constitutional command, union bosses, legislators, and public officials are still trying to do legal gymnastics to end-run the decision,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.

“All public sector workers deserve the free choice that Janus secures, and Foundation attorneys will continue to back them in their court battles for freedom.”

24 Oct 2023

Worker Who Criticized Union Official Defeats Attempt to Slap Him with Restraining Order

Posted in News Releases

Worker also challenged unconstitutional Puerto Rico laws mandating union membership and dues payment

San Juan, PR (October 24, 2023) – A Puerto Rico Trial Court has dismissed charges from a chapter president of the Unión Independiente Auténtica De Los Empleados De La Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (UIA) that sought to foist a restraining order on Reynaldo Cruz, an employee of the Puerto Rican Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA).

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys are providing Cruz with free legal services in both this dispute and a lawsuit at the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, in which Cruz is challenging Puerto Rico laws authorizing public corporations and unions to require employees to maintain union membership and pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs.

Cruz argues in that ongoing, multi-year suit that various provisions of the Puerto Rico Labor Relations Act violate the First Amendment. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME case that public employees have a First Amendment right to opt-out of dues payments to an unwanted union, and that public employees must waive this right before any dues are deducted from their paychecks.

In the more recent dispute over the restraining order, the UIA chapter president sought such an order against Cruz because he made Facebook posts criticizing the union’s representation of employees and the chapter president’s performance, specifically describing the chapter president as “lazy.” The union official claimed that a restraining order was necessary because Cruz would have to be stalking him to know of his “lazy” behavior. The UIA chapter president identified no evidence other than the Facebook posts themselves.

Foundation attorneys rebutted this outrageous theory. “Reynaldo Cruz’s Facebook posts are protected speech and activity that lawfully criticize and oppose the UIA President’s leadership, not ‘gestures or actions intended to intimidate, threaten, or pursue’ the union president or his family,” Cruz’s motion to dismiss reads. On October 17, 2023, a trial court judge dismissed the UIA official’s charges against Cruz.

“UIA union officials targeted me with a restraining order for daring to speak out against them, which is my free speech right,” commented Cruz. “That’s ridiculous coming from union officials who claim to ‘represent’ me and my coworkers. While I’m glad for this victory against the UIA union’s obvious retaliation, I hope that my other case helps secure workers’ rights against compulsory membership in and dues payments to unions they oppose.”

PRASA Employee Also Challenging Puerto Rico Law Authorizing Unconstitutional Compulsory Union Membership Requirements and Dues Seizures

Cruz’s lawsuit over illegal union membership and dues requirements began in 2017, after UIA officials responded to his request to end his union membership and stop dues payments by telling him that he could only disaffiliate with the union if he left his employment with PRASA or sought employment outside the UIA union’s “bargaining unit.” In addition to naming the UIA, Cruz’s lawsuit also included as a defendant the Governor of Puerto Rico in his official capacity as Cruz was also challenging the constitutionality of Puerto Rico’s laws authorizing mandatory dues and so-called “maintenance of membership” agreements.

While Cruz’s case was ongoing, the Janus case was decided, in which the Justices definitively ruled that requiring public sector employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment violates their First Amendment free association rights.

On October 17, a Puerto Rico District Court judge dubiously ruled that the case was moot. In addition to never declaring the Puerto Rico law authorizing mandatory dues payment and membership unconstitutional, the court also didn’t require the union to modify its contract to nix the provision ordering such mandatory dues deductions. Nor did the Court enter a judgment deciding Cruz’s entitlement to unconstitutionally-seized money that he demanded as part of his lawsuit. Foundation attorneys are currently considering an appeal.

“Mr. Cruz’s situation clearly shows how vindictive union officials will get if workers attempt to go against their agendas,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “It’s outrageous that UIA union officials claim to ‘represent’ workers while continuing to take dues money from Mr. Cruz in violation of his Janus rights, and while seeking to saddle him with a restraining order merely for publishing ideas critical of union bosses.”

“This conundrum demonstrates why First Amendment Janus protections are so vital: Despite often acting directly against workers’ interests, union officials will often demand worker fealty through coercive or retaliatory means,” Mix added. “Janus lets workers push back against union boss pressure by withholding their hard-earned money from union coffers.”