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.
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.
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.
California Security Employee Appeals NLRB Discrimination Ruling Minimizing Blatantly Illegal Force Union Demands
Labor Board wrongly claimed illegal union membership threats against San Francisco Allied Universal employee were mere clerical errors
San Francisco, CA (March 17, 2023) – Allied Universal employee Thomas Ross filed an appeal after National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) officials tried to end his discrimination cases against his employer and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) on the grounds that they are moot. Ross is receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in his several cases against the union and employer.
On November 10, 2022, Thomas Ross hit union officials affiliated with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and his employer Allied Universal, with two sets of federal charges for forcing him to join and financially support the union after he told both parties his religious beliefs forbid union support. One set of charges was filed with the NLRB for violating his rights under federal labor law, and the other was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where the charges are still pending, for illegal religious discrimination under federal civil rights law.
California, where Ross is employed, lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, allowing union officials the power to force workers to pay them fees or be fired. In Right to Work states, in contrast, no worker can be fired for refusal to financially support a union.
However, under federal law, employees with religious objections cannot be compelled to pay union fees, even in non-Right to Work States. Further, under the National Labor Relations Act, which the NLRB is charged with enforcing, formal union membership cannot be mandatory, nor can dues be deducted from a worker’s paycheck without explicit authorization.
Despite this, Allied Universal demanded Ross join the union and also illegally seized dues from his paycheck without Ross’ consent, which it then sent to SEIU officials. After Ross filed the charges, Allied Universal refunded Ross’s illegally seized dues and claimed that the deduction was simply an “administrative error”. This led the NRLB to dismiss the case on the basis of the supposed “error” being resolved.
Foundation Attorneys and Ross have ample evidence to demonstrate the dues seizure was not a mere clerical error. In the appeal filed with the NLRB on March 13, 2023, Foundation attorneys highlighted that “it was established company policy that all employees are required to sign the checkoff and membership forms to work at Allied’s ‘union-only’ locations.”
The appeal also showcases several threats made to Ross by Allied Universal, even after receiving written notice of his religious objection. The correspondence in the case “show[s] employer agents reiterating several times that Mr. Ross must sign the membership forms in order to work at a ‘union site,’ or he can find a new job.”
“The Foundation is proud to assist Mr. Ross in his brave fight against religious discrimination and union boss coercion in his workplace,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Apparently at the behest of the SEIU, Allied Universal repeatedly and blatantly violated Mr. Ross’ legal rights. The NLRB should not sweep those under the rug as supposed ‘clerical errors’ because the clear violations of longstanding law financially benefitted union officials.”
“Additionally, it’s important to note that regardless of whether an individual employee’s objection to union affiliation and dues payment is religious in nature or not, ultimately no worker should be forced to pay dues to a union under threat of losing their livelihood,” Mix added.
Courageous Tennessean Wins Big in Union Discrimination Suit
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
LIUNA union official disparaged faith of employee and sent her priest ‘remedial church readings’
“This is one of the greatest things I’ve ever done in my life,” Frame said of her victory over LIUNA officials. For more on her case watch our video with Frame’s Foundation attorney at the bottom of this page.
CLARKSVILLE, TN – Workers who seek free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation often stand up for their rights despite real threats union bosses make on their livelihoods and their ability to provide for their families. For Tennessee employee Dorothy Frame, who just won a major settlement against Laborers International Union (LIUNA) officials with Foundation aid, all that and more was at risk. She believed LIUNA officials’ forced-dues demands violated her religion.
Frame filed a complaint against LIUNA in November 2021, asserting that union officials illegally discriminated against her by forcing her, in violation of her Catholic beliefs, to fund the union’s activities through mandatory union dues payments. Frame voiced her religious objections to the union’s political activities, but union officials repeatedly rejected and ridiculed her request for a religious accommodation.
Under the settlement, as a condition of dismissing the lawsuit against LIUNA, union officials paid Frame $10,000 in damages. The settlement also required the LIUNA officials’ attorney to send an apology letter to Frame for the union’s inappropriate conduct.
Frame first requested a religious accommodation in 2019, when she sent “a letter informing [LIUNA] of the conflict between her religious beliefs and the requirement that she join or pay the Union.”
Tennessee has a Right to Work law ensuring that private sector workers in the state cannot be compelled to pay dues as a condition of employment. But Fort Campbell, the location of Blanchfield Army Community Hospital where Frame worked, may be an exclusive “federal enclave” not subject the state’s Right to Work law.
LIUNA Officials: Worker’s Religious Objections to Forced Dues ‘Illegitimate’
Frame’s former employer, J&J Worldwide Service, maintains a union monopoly contract with LIUNA union bosses that forces employees to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs.
Frame’s July 2019 letter included a message from her parish priest supporting her request for a religious accommodation. Federal law prohibits unions from discriminating against employees on the basis of religion, and requires unions to provide accommodations to workers who oppose dues payment on religious grounds.
Instead, LIUNA officials denigrated her beliefs. In addition to demanding she provide a “legitimate justification” for why her conflict with the union’s activity warranted a religious accommodation, a union lawyer claimed in a letter to Frame that her understanding of her faith was inferior to his own understanding of her faith. He even closed the letter by sending Ms. Frame and her priest remedial church readings.
Frame subsequently filed a discrimination charge against LIUNA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December 2019. Even after EEOC proceedings continued and Frame’s attorneys sent letters showing the conflict between the union’s stance and her religious views, union officials still refused to accommodate her beliefs and refused to return money they took from her paycheck after she requested an accommodation.
Ultimately, the EEOC issued Frame a “right to sue” letter leading to her federal anti-discrimination lawsuit, filed by Foundation staff attorneys, resulting in her victory.
“Despite being targeted with years of bullying and discrimination by LIUNA officials, Ms. Frame refused to forsake her religious beliefs and stood firm for her rights,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “She has now prevailed decisively against LIUNA’s illegal attempt to force her to choose between remaining true to her beliefs and staying employed.”
Forced-Dues Privileges Open Door for Union Discrimination against Workers
“The National Right to Work Foundation is proud to stand with principled workers like Ms. Frame. Big Labor’s government-granted privilege to force rank-and-file workers to support union boss activities creates a breeding ground for malfeasance and anti-worker abuse,” Mix continued. “No American worker should have to pay tribute to a union they oppose just to keep their job, whether their objections are religious or otherwise.”
