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.”
CUNY Professors Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Forced Association with Antisemitism-Linked Union
NY law forces professors to be represented by hostile union bosses, but SCOTUS ruling could free public workers nationwide from unwanted union power
Washington, DC (July 22, 2024) – Six City University of New York (CUNY) professors are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their federal civil rights lawsuit charging Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union officials with forcing them to accept the union’s so-called “representation” in violation of their First Amendment rights. The professors, five of whom are Jewish, oppose the PSC union’s public statements and other actions as being strongly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.
The professors, Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and The Fairness Center. The lawsuit challenges aspects of New York State’s “Taylor Law”, which grants union bosses monopoly bargaining power in the public sector. This permits union bosses to speak and contract for public workers, including those that want nothing to do with the union. In addition to opposing the union’s extreme ideology, the professors oppose being forced into a “bargaining unit” of instructional staff who share the union’s objectionable beliefs or have employment interests diverging from their own.
The professors’ petition of certiorari points out that the High Court has recognized for decades how public sector monopoly bargaining burdens workers’ First Amendment freedom of association rights. In 1944, the Supreme Court’s decision in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. recognized how rail union bosses were manipulating their powers over the workplace to discriminate against African-American railway workers. The Supreme Court restated its concerns most recently in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME decision, with the majority calling monopoly bargaining “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.”
The petition also counters lower courts’ mistaken assertions that the Supreme Court’s 1984 Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight decision disposes of the CUNY professors’ case. As the petition points out, Knight only dealt with public employees’ ability to participate in union meetings and not with the professors’ legal argument that being forced to accept the bargaining power and “representation” of union officials is a violation of First Amendment free association rights. With lower courts so frequently misinterpreting Knight, the petition argues the Supreme Court is needed to clarify the issue, and apply the proper First Amendment analysis to the New York laws’ forced-representation scheme.
“The core issue in this case is straightforward: can the government force Jewish professors to accept the representation of an advocacy group they rightly consider to be anti-Semitic? The answer plainly should be ‘no,’” the petition begins. “The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals, and especially religious dissenters, to disaffliate themselves from associations and speech they abhor.”
“Knight did not sanction a state forcing Jewish faculty members who are ardent Zionists to accept the representation of a union that supports policies they consider anti-Israel,” the petition continues. “The Court should grant this petition to clarify Knight and make clear that the First Amendment protects individuals’ right to dissociate themselves from advocacy groups that support policies contrary to their deeply held beliefs.”
Law Forces Jewish CUNY Professors to Associate with Anti-Israel PSC Union
The professors’ original complaint recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a host of discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents, including a June 2021 union resolution that the professors viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel.”
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” Prof. Lax “has felt marginalized and ostracized by PSC because the union has made it clear that Jews who support the Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, are not welcome,” said the complaint. As their petition of certiorari notes, these conflicts have significantly increased since October 7.
SCOTUS Asked to Overturn Laws Imposing Union Power on Public Workers
The petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case and stop CUNY and the State of New York from letting PSC union bosses impose their “representation” on the professors. It also demands that the court declare unconstitutional Section 204 of New York’s Taylor Law to the extent that it compels the professors under union power.
Issues with union monopoly bargaining power in the academic sphere came into the national spotlight just this month, when the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on fighting antisemitism in unions. There, Will Sussman, a Ph.D. student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified about how the law forces him and other graduate students across the nation to associate with union bosses that perpetrate divisive protests and denigrate Israel. Sussman, who is Jewish, filed federal discrimination charges against the MIT Graduate Student Union (GSU-UE).
“New York’s legal scheme forces these CUNY professors to associate with union officials who insult their identity and create a work environment rife with bullying and harassment. It’s hard to think of a more obvious violation of the First Amendment,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court has expressed concerns with monopoly bargaining for decades, and it’s high time that the justices finally acknowledge the First Amendment protects government employees from being forced to associate with political so-called ‘representation’ they adamantly oppose.”
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.
CUNY Professors’ Lawsuit Challenging Forced Association with Antisemitism-Linked Union Continues at Second Circuit
City University professors challenge NY law that forces them to be represented by hostile union hierarchy
New York, NY (June 5, 2023) – Six City University of New York (CUNY) professors have taken their federal civil rights lawsuit against Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union officials to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The professors, Avraham Goldstein, Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano, charge PSC union bosses with violating the First Amendment by forcing them to accept the union’s monopoly control and “representation” – “representation” the professors not only oppose, but find extremely offensive and in contradiction to their personal beliefs.
The professors, five of whom are Jewish, are receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation and The Fairness Center. They seek to overturn New York State’s “Taylor Law,” which grants public sector union bosses the power to speak and contract for workers, including those that want nothing to do with the union. In addition to opposing the union’s extreme ideology, the professors oppose being forced into a “bargaining unit” of instructional staff who share the union’s beliefs or have employment interests diverging from their own.
The professors’ opening brief at the Second Circuit argues that a lower court’s reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight was misguided. Knight, the brief states, dealt primarily with public employees’ ability to participate in union meetings and not with the professors’ legal argument that being forced to accept the bargaining power and “representation” of union officials is a violation of First Amendment free association rights.
The brief also maintains that the Supreme Court in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision acknowledged that public sector monopoly bargaining is “a significant impingement on associational freedoms.” Other Supreme Court decisions as early as 1944 also recognized problems with monopoly bargaining, the brief notes, including the Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. decision, in which African-American railway workers challenged a rail union’s racially discriminatory hiring and promotion policies.
“If the First Amendment prohibits anything, it prohibits the government from dictating who speaks for citizens in their relations with the government,” reads the brief. “The State Appellees and CUNY thus necessarily infringe on the Professors’ speech and associational rights by forcing them to accept a hostile political group, which they view as anti-Semitic, as their exclusive agent for speaking and contracting with their government employer.”
Lawsuit: Professors Compelled to Associate with Union Even After Bullying and Threats
The professors’ original complaint recounted that several of the professors chose to dissociate from PSC based on a June 2021 union resolution that they viewed as “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel,” and a host of other discriminatory actions perpetrated by union agents and adherents.
The complaint said Prof. Michael Goldstein “experienced anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist attacks from members of PSC, including what he sees as bullying, harassment, destruction of property, calls for him to be fired, organization of student attacks against him, and threats against him and his family.” Goldstein has needed a guard to accompany him on campus, the complaint noted.
Prof. Lax, the complaint explained, already received in a separate case a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “that CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” Prof. Lax “has felt marginalized and ostracized by PSC because the union has made it clear that Jews who support the Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, are not welcome,” said the complaint.
Suit Seeks Overturn of New York State Law Forcing Union Power on Professors & Damages
The lawsuit seeks to stop the defendants from “certifying or recognizing PSC, or any other union, as Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative without their consent” and “enforcing any provisions…that require Plaintiffs to provide financial support to PSC.” It also demands that the court declare “Section 204 of the Taylor Law…unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent that it requires or authorizes PSC to be Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative…”
“No American worker should be forced to associate with union officials and union members that openly denigrate their identities and deeply-held beliefs,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Yet, New York State’s Taylor Law grants union officials the power to force dissenting workers under the ‘exclusive representation’ of a union hierarchy. As these CUNY professors have experienced, granting union officials the power to nullify public employees’ free association rights in this way breeds serious harm and discord among employees.”
“Not just in Janus v. AFSCME, but in decisions going back decades, the Supreme Court has questioned the constitutionality of union monopoly bargaining,” Mix added. “Federal courts must take action to ensure that government employees can freely exercise their right to dissociate from an unwanted union for religious, cultural, financial, or any other reasons.”
“Our clients want to vindicate their First Amendment rights and win their independence from a union they believe hates them,” commented Fairness Center President and General Counsel Nathan McGrath. “If successful, their lawsuit could transform the relationship between public-sector unions and employees in New York and, potentially, beyond.”
NYC University Professors Take Aim at Forced Union ‘Representation’
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, March/April 2022 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
CUNY professors’ lawsuit argues NY law forces them under power of anti-Semitic union
Prof. Avraham Goldstein recalled in a Wall Street Journal piece the anti-Semitism his family faced in the Soviet Union. He and other plaintiffs argue they shouldn’t be forced to associate with a union that subjects them to similar hostility.
NEW YORK, NY – For decades, government sector union bosses have relied on two pillars of coercion — forced dues and forced representation — to maintain their grip on power over America’s public servants and the public services citizens rely on.
While the Supreme Court in the 2018 National Right to Work Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case recognized that forcing government employees to pay dues to stay employed violates the First Amendment, a new Foundation-assisted civil rights lawsuit from six City University of New York (CUNY) system professors may finally defeat union bosses’ privilege to impose union representation over the objections of public workers.
CUNY professors Jeffrey Lax, Michael Goldstein, Avraham Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, and Maria Pagano sued the AFL-CIO-affiliated Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, CUNY executives, and New York State officials in January, challenging New York State’s “Taylor Law” that gives unions monopoly bargaining privileges in public sector workplaces like CUNY.
The plaintiffs, most of whom are Jewish, oppose the union’s “representation” on the grounds that union officials and adherents have relentlessly denigrated their religious and cultural identity. Several of the plaintiffs exercised their Janus right to cut off dues after PSC officials rammed through a resolution in June 2021 that they found “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel,” according to the lawsuit.
Discrimination Cited in Groundbreaking First Amendment Case
The lawsuit, which was filed with legal aid from both the National Right to Work Foundation and Pennsylvania-based Fairness Center, says: “Despite Plaintiffs’ resignations from membership in PSC, Defendants . . . acting in concert and under color of state law, force all Plaintiffs to continue to utilize PSC as their exclusive bargaining representative.”
The resolution is not nearly the worst example of PSC officials’ anti-Semitism, according to the lawsuit. Prof. Michael Goldstein asserts that adherents of PSC are waging a campaign to get him fired and have targeted him with harassment and threats such that he must have an armed guard accompany him on campus. Prof. Lax cites in the lawsuit a determination he has already received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that “PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.”
While all of the professors take issue with PSC bosses’ radicalism, they also want to break free from internal conflicts within the large and disparate unit, which consists of full-time, part-time, and adjunct teaching employees and others. Prof. Kass-Shraibman states in the lawsuit that “instead of prioritizing the pay of full-time faculty, PSC expended resources advocating on behalf of teachers in Peru, graduate students at various other universities and the so-called ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement.”
On top of all that, Profs. Avraham Goldstein, Kass-Shraibman, and Langbert contend that PSC officials aren’t even respecting their First Amendment Janus rights. Although all three professors clearly indicated they wanted to cut off financial support to the union, the lawsuit explains that “Defendants PSC and the City . . . have taken and continue to take and/or have accepted and continue to accept union dues from [their] wages as a condition of employment . . .” in violation of Janus.
“I had paid thousands of dollars in union dues for workplace representation, not for political statements or attacks on my beliefs and identity,” Prof. Avraham Goldstein wrote in a piece for The Wall Street Journal. “I decided to resign my union membership and naively thought I could leave the union and its politics behind for good.”
“I was wrong,” recounted Prof. Goldstein. “Union officials refused my resignation and continued taking union dues out of my paycheck.”
Suit Seeks Damages and to Overturn NY Law Authorizing Union Control
The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the Taylor Law’s imposition of monopoly union control is unconstitutional, and that the defendants cease “certifying or recognizing PSC, or any other union, as Plaintiffs’ exclusive representative without their consent.” The lawsuit also demands the union and university return dues seized in violation of Janus to Profs. Avraham Goldstein, Kass-Shraibman, and Langbert.
“By forcing these professors into a monopoly union collective against their will, the state of New York mandates that they associate with union officials and other union members who take positions that are deeply offensive to these professors’ most fundamental beliefs,” observed National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “New York State’s Taylor Law authorizes such unconscionable compulsion. It is time federal courts fully protect the rights of government employees to exercise their freedom to disassociate from an unwanted union, whether their objections are religious, cultural, financial, or otherwise.”
