National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Foundation Action Archives - National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

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.”

29 Jun 2025

Foundation-Backed Starbucks Baristas Support Trump’s Firing of Biden NLRB Member

Posted in Blog

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, May/June 2025 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Starbucks employees’ challenge to agency power boosted by firing of Biden Board Member

It may not look like much, but this Starbucks store in downtown Buffalo, NY, is the place where barista Ariana Cortes started her trailblazing legal battle against both the SBWU union and a hostile NLRB bureaucracy.

WASHINGTON, DC – President Trump isn’t the only person seeking reform in the federal government. Several National Right to Work Foundation-backed workers have advanced lawsuits in federal courts challenging the constitutionality of a federal agency.

Two upstate New York Starbucks baristas (Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam), represented by Foundation staff attorneys, filed the first case in the nation challenging NLRB members’ removal protections. Their case advanced a revolutionary argument that the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) removal protections for NLRB members — which protect them from presidential removal during their entire terms except in very rare cases — let them exercise executive power in violation of separation of powers doctrines in Article II of the Constitution.

This power is plain to see — unelected NLRB members have the power to decide who can vote in union elections, adjudicate disputes between employers and unions, impose one-size-fits-all union “representation” on employees who don’t want it, and much more. Showdown Over Removal of Biden Appointee Headed for SCOTUS President Trump utilized the same arguments when he announced he was ousting Biden-appointed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox (a former SEIU union lawyer) for issuing radical decisions that “vastly exceeded the bounds” of federal law.

Wilcox’s lawyers sued Trump over the removal, arguing — wrongly — that NLRB members’ removal protections are valid and prevent the President from doing virtually anything to stop NLRB members who have gone rogue. The case between President Trump and Gwynne Wilcox has now joined Cortes and Karam’s suit in being considered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As this issue goes to print, the Supreme Court has ordered Wilcox off the NLRB while it decides whether Wilcox should remain off the NLRB while the case is ongoing. Foundation attorneys submitted a legal brief on behalf of Cortes and Karam backing the President’s contentions. Cortes and Karam’s brief focuses on how the Board’s powers to enforce federal labor law, lack of technical expertise, and the partisan nature of its membership are not characteristics of a federal agency where removal protections might be appropriate under Supreme Court caselaw.

The brief also argues that reinstating Wilcox would cause chaos because it would let her participate in deciding cases before the NLRB while her continued presence on the Board is still the subject of litigation.

“Cortes and Karam have a vital interest in the outcome of this case, and not only because it concerns the constitutionality of [NLRB member removal protections],” the brief says. “Cortes and Karam do not want an individual the President properly removed from the Board because of her unsound rulings — Gwynne Wilcox — to decide their pending NLRB cases.”

Because of the weighty constitutional matters at stake, many have already predicted that this question will likely receive final consideration from the U.S. Supreme Court. Cortes and Karam’s lawsuit is fully briefed at the D.C. Circuit Court, and a hearing is scheduled for May. Their case was spurred by NLRB bureaucrats’ decision to block the baristas and their coworkers from exercising their right to vote to decertify (or remove) Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials.

NLRB Region 3 rejected petitions in which a sufficient number of coworkers from both Cortes’ and Karam’s upstate New York Starbucks locations requested such elections. Regional NLRB officials cited unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation as the reason for barring the votes. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification requests.

Starbucks Baristas’ Battle Promotes Liberty for Workers Across Country

“Ms. Cortes and Mr. Karam spoke up on behalf of untold numbers of independent-minded workers nationwide when they filed their federal lawsuit challenging the NLRB’s constitutionality,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens.

“The NLRB regularly stops workers from exercising their rights to push back against union influence for any reason union bosses dream up. Board members’ ability to do this without fearing any accountability to the elected President has effectively turned the agency into a fourth branch of government.

“We hope the Starbucks baristas’ lawsuit, boosted by the President’s efforts to reform the government, eventually results in lasting change to the Board that protects worker freedom,” Semmens added.

28 Jun 2025

NY Healthcare Worker Asks Labor Board to Unblock Vote to Oust SEIU

Posted in Blog

Sun River Health employees’ election abruptly canceled by NLRB officials

Laura Gallo is passionate about the healthcare work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.

LONG ISLAND, NY – Laura Gallo, a senior patient representative at Sun River Health in Long Island, NY, thought she’d secured a rare chance for her and her coworkers to vote out the 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East union.

Her goal? Give hundreds of colleagues a chance to escape from unwanted union “representation.” Unfortunately, on February 13, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 29 Director abruptly derailed her campaign citing a dubious technicality.

Now, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Gallo is battling to reverse the ruling and expose a system that allows union legal trickery to block workers from voting on whether a union deserves to remain in their workplace.

Legal Hurdles Undermine Right to Remove Unwanted Unions

Despite the clear right of employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to petition for decertification elections to free themselves of unwanted union “representation,” numerous NLRB-invented rules and policies give union officials the ability to block or delay employee-requested decertification votes.

In Gallo’s case, not only did she need to collect signatures for the required 30% of the bargaining unit, but because she works in the healthcare industry, NLRB rules require her to file the petition within a short window before the union contract expires. If she missed the window, union officials could have blocked her vote for up to three years under the Board-invented “contract bar” policy.

Despite navigating the complicated process pro se (without formal legal representation), Gallo nailed the timing, submitting her petition with the supporting signatures of her coworkers in August 2024, following instructions from NLRB officials to trigger the vote.

At that point, the decertification was on track, with the company and union agreeing to how the election would be run. Only then did the NLRB Regional Director, possibly due to improper backchannel communications with union lawyers, suddenly cancel the scheduled vote without providing any meaningful explanation to Gallo or Sun River attorneys.

When the full Board in Washington, D.C., was asked to review the case, the Regional official suddenly “clarified” that additional signatures in support of the petition arrived just outside the contract bar window, meaning under a 1993 precedent the decertification election request could be rejected under the contract bar.

In February, having retained National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys to represent her, Gallo filed a Request for Review with the NLRB in Washington, asking that the Regional Director’s decision be overturned. The filing argues that her election should be allowed to go forward because she followed the Board agent’s instructions and, as a pro se petitioner, she should receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to estimating the total number of signatures needed to trigger a vote.

This decertification effort isn’t the only battle Ms. Gallo is fighting against the 1199SEIU union. Laura Gallo is passionate about the work she does at Sun River Health to improve the wellbeing of people across Long Island. She’s now using that same passion to win her coworkers a chance to vote out divisive SEIU union bosses.

Pending unfair labor practice charges Gallo filed against the union show why many workers have likely soured on the union: The charges maintain that SEIU union officials unlawfully interfered with access to the hospital, took pictures of Gallo without her consent as an intimidation tactic, and engaged in other disruptive and coercive behaviors that were so egregious local police were called to end the disruption.

Time to End NLRB’s Rigged Rules that Protect Incumbent Union Bosses

Gallo’s case is one of many where Foundation attorneys are asking the Board to overturn non-statutory barriers that workers face when trying to remove unions they oppose.

“Ms. Gallo’s case pulls back the curtain on how NLRB policies are rigged against individual workers to protect unpopular incumbent union bosses,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.

“She followed NLRB agents’ instructions, navigated the Board-created ‘window’ for filing her petition, and even got an election scheduled, yet the Regional Director blocked the vote and handed SEIU bosses a gift at the expense of Gallo and her coworkers’ rights.

“The NLRA, which the NLRB is supposed to neutrally enforce, only has one limitation on a workers’ right to vote out a union they oppose, which is a previous vote within the last year.” added Messenger. “All the other NLRB-invented policies and bars should be eliminated so workers can fully exercise their right to free themselves of unwanted unions.”

16 Feb 2022

Foundation Opposes Biden Rule to ‘Authorize’ Illegal Union Skim of Medicaid Funds

Posted in Newsletter Articles

The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2021 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.

Comments: Federal law prohibits diverting Medicaid funds away from homecare providers

Harris v. Quinn plaintiff Susie Watts (left) said her victory against forced dues for homecare providers was really a win for her disabled daughter Libby: “It’s not even about me as a homecare provider…They’re her benefits that are being siphoned off.”

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Right to Work Foundation filed formal comments with the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, asking the agency to reject an attempt to authorize state officials to redirect Medicaid funds into union coffers.

The Biden Administration’s pending proposal would overturn a 2018 Foundation-backed rule that confirmed that federal law prohibits union officials from skimming union dues payments from Medicaid funds intended for those who provide home-based assistance to people with disabilities. The Foundation’s comments argue that the Trump-era rule simply ensured that Medicaid regulations conformed to long-standing statutory law, and that the federal statute governing Medicaid prohibits diverting payments to any third parties, including unions and union PACs.

Under Obama, Union Bosses Cashed Out at Expense of Medicaid Recipients

The comments also detail the Obama Administration’s role in permitting union officials to violate the law, explaining that a special exemption created in 2014 by the Administration gave union officials legal cover to siphon upwards of $1 billion from Medicaid payments.

Union officials, especially at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), have long used deceptive and even unconstitutional tactics to divert taxpayer-funded Medicaid payments into union coffers. Before the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Foundation-won 2014 Harris v. Quinn decision, homecare providers in over a dozen states were required to fund union activities. State governments automatically deducted fees from providers’ Medicaid payments even though such union dues diversions violated federal law regarding Medicaid funds.

In Harris, the court held that mandatory union payments violate the First Amendment rights of homecare workers who do not wish to support union activities. Even after the Harris decision was issued, union officials continued seizing money from hundreds of thousands of providers across the country under cover of the Obama-era rule creating an exception to the prohibition against skimming Medicaid funds. Union officials used numerous underhanded tactics to keep the dues skim going, including, according to providers’ reports, claiming the dues payments were mandatory, blocking or ignoring requests to stop the deductions, and even forging signatures to authorize them.

Unlawful System Exists to Subsidize Union Politics

“[Home and Community Based Service] Medicaid payments are supposed to pay for care for the severely disabled,” the Foundation’s comments state. “Diverting these payments to third-party special interests to subsidize their political agendas, lobbying and recruitment campaigns is as unconscionable as it is unlawful” under the federal law governing Medicaid.

“What you’re seeing is a misuse of Medicaid funds being steered away from paying for care to disabled people and being used for politics,” Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, who argued Harris, told The Washington Free Beacon in its report about the Foundation’s comments. “They set up an entire system to pressure Medicaid providers to assign a portion of their Medicaid funds over to” union officials and their political action committees.

Under the 2018 rule, union officials may still collect payments from caregivers who voluntarily support union activities, but cannot use taxpayer-funded government payment systems to deduct the dues from Medicaid payouts. Voluntary union supporters could still personally make payments just as millions of Americans make regular payments to private businesses or other organizations.

“The Biden Administration’s plan to reauthorize the Medicaid union dues skim is a cynical ploy to allow their political allies to divert funds that federal law makes clear should be going to help those who are homebound or have significant disabilities,” observed National Right to Work Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens. “Homecare providers’ own free choice should determine whether union bosses receive their support, not politically motivated, federally imposed special exemptions.”

14 Oct 2025

AT&T-BellSouth Workers Challenge Union-Concocted ‘Window Period’ Restrictions on Ending Dues

Posted in Newsletter Articles

CWA officials trap dissenting workers, but case asks NLRB to declare ‘window period’ restrictions illegal

Jennifer Abruzzo went straight from being a top CWA union lawyer to being General Counsel of the Biden NLRB. Though President Trump fired her, that doesn’t mean that workers don’t still have to battle the anti-freedom policies she advanced.

MIAMI, FL – In August 2024, Communications Workers of America (CWA) union bosses ordered thousands of AT&T employees across the Southeast to abandon their jobs and go on strike. Unsurprisingly, despite union officials’ propaganda surrounding the strike, many workers disagreed with the decision.

“CWA union officials ordered us to abandon our jobs when many of us just wanted to keep working and supporting ourselves and our families,” commented Amanda Marc, a Miami-based worker for AT&T-BellSouth. “That’s bad enough, but now they’re putting up all these roadblocks to try to prevent those of us who don’t like the union’s agenda from stopping our money from flowing to them.”

Marc is referring to a situation that South Florida AT&T-BellSouth workers have been increasingly dealing with in the aftermath of the strike, which came to an end in September 2024. With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, Marc and her coworker Sofia Hernaiz filed unfair labor practice charges against CWA union officials, detailing that the union hierarchy has ignored their requests to cut off dues payments and has continued to siphon money from their paychecks illegally. Additional charges for other AT&T-BellSouth workers are also being filed.

Dues Kept Flowing to Union After Workers Requested Stop

Marc and Hernaiz’s charges point out that CWA officials are imposing a “window period” scheme on workers who want to end financial support, limiting to just ten days per year the time in which workers can demand that dues deductions cease from their paychecks.

“This kind of behavior makes me feel like they’re really just interested in having control over us and taking our money,” Marc added. Marc and Hernaiz filed their charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law.

Marc’s charge in particular challenges the practice of imposing “window periods” as violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): While the NLRA unfortunately allows union officials to prevent a worker from revoking his or her dues authorization card for the first year after it is initially signed, Marc’s charge notes that any further restrictions are unlawful.

“The unions have no statutory license to create tricky and arbitrary ‘window periods’ to force unwilling employees to keep paying dues,” Marc’s charges say.

Because Marc, Hernaiz, and their colleagues work in the Right to Work state of Florida, CWA union bosses are forbidden from forcing workers to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs, though CWA union officials are trying to limit the exercise of this freedom with their window period scheme. In states that lack Right to Work protections, in contrast, union officials can force employees to pay fees to the union or be terminated, meaning even perfect “compliance” with a union boss’s arbitrary window period restriction would not get a worker out of forced union payments.

Marc and Hernaiz’s charges state that they, and many of their coworkers, resigned their union memberships in August 2024, which was around when CWA union officials ordered AT&T-BellSouth workers out on the strike. Despite the women’s requests to end union membership and stop financial support for the union, the charges read, CWA agents never responded to their requests to stop dues deductions, and never even informed them of the window period dates in which they would consider their requests valid.

Even worse, Hernaiz details in her charge that union officials tried to subject her to internal union discipline for not participating in the strike. Under federal law, union bosses cannot impose union proceedings on workers who are not union members. Foundation attorneys are in the process of aiding other AT&T-BellSouth workers targeted by such illegal discipline.

No Legal Justification for ‘Window Periods,’ New NLRB Should Toss Policy

“Federal labor law is supposed to protect the right of workers to decide freely whether they want to join or financially support a union,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “So-called ‘window periods’ exist only to restrict this freedom just so union officials can continue to funnel dues money from workers’ pockets straight into union agendas.

“The NLRB under the new Administration should recognize that this practice contradicts both worker freedom and federal law, and end it accordingly,” Mix added.

13 Oct 2025

Cincinnati-Area Kroger Worker Secures Victory Against Illegal Union Dues Deductions

Posted in Newsletter Articles

After legal win, grocery employee based near Cincinnati finds job in nearby Right to Work Kentucky to escape forced dues

Northern Kentucky (foreground) might be just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, OH, but the difference in worker freedom is stark. Without Right to Work, forced dues abuses are rampant compared to Right to Work Kentucky.

CINCINNATI, OH – In a win for employee freedom, James Carroll, a Kroger employee based near Cincinnati, has secured victory in his federal case against United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 75 and Kroger. The win comes after Carroll challenged the union and his employer for unlawfully deducting union dues from his paycheck and threatening him with termination for refusing to sign an illegal dues deduction form.

Carroll, with free legal support from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 9 in Cincinnati. His case exposed the UFCW’s use of an unlawful “dual-purpose” membership form, which combines union membership and dues deduction authorization into a single signature. Under established Supreme Court legal precedents, workers have the right to refrain from formal union membership, and any dues deduction authorizations must be voluntary and separate from membership agreements.

In order to avoid further prosecution, Kroger and UFCW entered into a settlement that requires them to reimburse Carroll for the illegally seized dues and publicly post a notice informing other employees of their rights.

But Carroll didn’t stop there. To protect himself from future union coercion, he secured a transfer to a Kroger store in Right to Work Kentucky. Unlike Ohio, where workers can be forced to pay union fees even as non-members, Kentucky’s Right to Work law ensures that all union payments are voluntary, shielding Carroll from further threats that he pay up or face termination.

This case challenging the UFCW’s forced dues abuse of grocery employees isn’t an isolated incident. In 2023, Houston-area Kroger employee Jessica Haefner, also aided by Foundation attorneys, filed charges against UFCW for using a dual-purpose form and altering her response to falsely indicate consent for dues deductions.

More recently, in 2024, Portland grocery worker Reegin Schaffer won a case against UFCW after union officials ignored her resignation request during a strike and retaliated by attempting to fine her for working.

Another Worker Flees to the Freedom of Right to Work

“We are pleased with this legal win for Mr. Carroll, and that he is now completely free of union bosses’ forced-dues demands in Right to Work Kentucky,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger.

“Unfortunately most workers employed in forced dues states don’t have the option to commute to a job in a Right to Work state, which is why workers everywhere need the protection of Right to Work laws.”

12 3 ›»