Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.
| (i)Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| Total | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any unusual grants.) .... | 416,661 | 307,885 | 517,325 | 1,241,871 | ||
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....... | ||||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 416,661 | 307,885 | 517,325 | 1,241,871 | ||
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 50,489 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 1,191,382 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 416,661 | 307,885 | 517,325 | 1,241,871 | ||
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | ||||||
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | ||||||
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10. | 1,241,871 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose...... | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5. | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons... | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2015 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2015 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2015 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2015: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2010 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2015 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2015, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2015. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2016. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c Excess from 2013....... | ||||
| d From 2014....... | ||||
| e From 2015....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| PART II, SHORT YEAR EXPLANATION: | COLUMN (D) 2014 IS A SHORT PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2015 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, WHICH WAS A RESULT OF A CHANGE IN THE ORGANIZATION'S ACCOUNTING PERIOD. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| PART III, LINE 4A | LEGAL SERVICES DESCRIPTION OF CASES LITIGATED AND THE RATIONALE FOR THE DETERMINATION THAT THE LITIGATION BENEFITS THE PUBLIC GENERALLY: I. CASE NAME: JANE LADLEY AND CHRISTOPHER MEIER V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO SCHOOLTEACHERS JANE LADLEY AND CHRIS MEIER, WHO ARE THE TARGETS OF AN ALLEGED ILLEGAL PUBLIC UNION SCHEME DESIGNED TO (I) PREVENT ALL NONUNION EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING LADLEY AND MEIER, FROM SENDING MONEY TO CERTAIN PUBLIC CHARITIES, AND (II) FUNNEL MONEY TO THE UNION'S FAVORITE CHARITIES. FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST BY SEEKING TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON NONUNION EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO ANY NONUNION EMPLOYEE IN PENNSYLVANIA FROM HAVING THEIR UNION DUES USED TO FUND A CHARITY SUPPORTING CANDIDATES OR POLICIES TO WHICH THEY OBJECT ON RELIGIOUS OR OTHER GROUNDS. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS BECAUSE ALL OF THE NONUNION EMPLOYEES IN PENNSYLVANIA WHERE SUCH CONDUCT IS OCCURRING ARE IMPACTED BY THE UNIONS PARTICIPATING IN SUCH PRACTICES. THE LITIGANTS RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION. THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT IS BESTOWED ON CHARITIES WHO ARE NOT RECEIVING CONTRIBUTIONS BECAUSE OF THE UNION'S PRACTICES. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. WHILE THE IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT, THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE ARE RELATIVELY SMALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS. THE MISSION OF FAIRNESS CENTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF ITS DONORS, GRANTS FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. FAIRNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | II. CASE NAME: TROMETTER V. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ("NEA") & PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ("PSEA") THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO MARY TROMETTER, AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF CULINARY ARTS AT THE PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY. FAIRNESS CENTER REPRESENTS MARY TROMETTER IN HER CHALLENGE TO THE PSEA'S AND NEA'S USE OF DUES MONEY TO SUPPORT A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS AND PROTECTION OF PUBLIC-SECTOR EMPLOYEES IN PENNSYLVANIA FROM HAVING THEIR UNION DUES USED TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW. THEREFORE, THE LITIGATION WOULD ALSO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SEEKS TO DEFEND AND UPHOLD THE POLITICAL SYSTEM ESTABLISHED IN PENNSYLVANIA. A FAVORABLE RESULT WOULD SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHER STATES WHERE SIMILAR STATE LAWS ARE BEING VIOLATED. THE LITIGANTS RECIEVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION. THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT IS BESTOWED ON THE PUBLIC-SECTOR DUES-PAYERS IN THAT THEIR MEMBERSHIP DUES ARE NOT BEING USED FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. THE LITIGATION IS NOT ONE THAT WOULD WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. WHILE THE IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT, THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE ARE RELATIVELY SMALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS. FIARNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | III. CASE NAME:AMERICANS FOR FAIR TREATMENT, INC. V. PENNSYLVANIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AND PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL DISTRICT THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO AMERICANS FOR FAIR TREATMENT, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT EQUIPS AND EMPOWERS AMERICANS TO RECEIVE FAIR TREATMENT FROM GOVERNMENT UNIONS, IN ITS CHALLENGE TO PHILADELPHIA'S LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF TAKING SCHOOL TEACHERS AND OTHER SCHOOL EMPLOYEES OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PERFORM FULL-TIME WORK FOR THE PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASE WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SOUGHT TO ENSURE LAWFUL AND PROPER USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND STRENGTHENING OF THE PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL SYSTEM. ADDITIONALLY, THE LITIGATION HAD A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SOUGHT A RULING APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA AND IN OTHER STATES, WHERE SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS ABOUND. THE LITIGANTS RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. THE LITIGATION WAS NOT ONE THAT WOULD WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. WHILE THE IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT, THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE WERE RELATIVELY SMALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS. FAIRNESS CENTER DID NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | IV. CASE NAME: LINDA MISJA V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO SCHOOLTEACHER LINDA MISJA, THE TARGET OF AN ALLEGED ILLEGAL PUBLIC UNION SCHEME DESIGNED TO (I) PREVENT ALL NONUNION EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING MISJA, FROM SENDING MONEY TO CERTAIN PUBLIC CHARITIES, AND (II) FUNNEL MONEY TO THE UNION'S FAVORITE CHARITIES. FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SEEKS TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON NONUNION EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO ANY NONUNION EMPLOYEE IN PENNSYLVANIA FROM HAVING THEIR UNION DUES USED TO FUND A CHARITY SUPPORTING CANDIDATES OR POLICIES TO WHICH THEY OBJECT ON RELIGIOUS OR OTHER GROUNDS. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS BECAUSE ALL OF THE NONUNION EMPLOYEES IN PENNSYLVANIA WHERE SUCH CONDUCT IS OCCURRING ARE IMPACTED BY THE UNIONS PARTICIPATING IN SUCH PRACTICES. THE LITIGANTS RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION. THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT IS BESTOWED ON CHARITIES WHO ARE NOT RECEIVING CONTRIBUTIONS BECAUSE OF THE UNION PRACTICES. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. WHILE THE IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT, THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE ARE RELATIVELY SMALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS. THE MISSION OF THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF ITS DONORS, GRANTS FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. FAIRNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | V. CASE NAME:MARY ANN DAILEY V. ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY FACILITIES ("APSCUF") THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO COLLEGE PROFESSOR MARY ANN DAILEY IN HER CHALLENGE TO APSCUF'S ANNUAL "DUES REBATE CAMPAIGN," A DECEPTIVE UNION FUNDRAISING PROGRAM INVOLVING MANIPULATION OF UNION DUES AMOUNTS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SOUGHT ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAW AND CLARIFICATION OR EXPANSION OF UNION MEMBERS' RIGHTS AGAINST COERCION AND TO TRUTHFUL ACCOUNTING IN UNION DUES. THE LITIGATION HAD SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS BECAUSE UNION MEMBERS IN PENNSYLVANIA MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME DECEPTIVE PRACTICE EMPLOYED BY APSCUF. THE LITIGANTS RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. THE LITIGATION DID NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. WHILE THE IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT, THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE WERE RELATIVELY SMALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS. THE MISSION OF THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF ITS DONORS, GRANTS FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. FAIRNESS CENTER DID NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | VI. CASE NAME: DAVID SMITH AND DONALD LAMBRECHT V. GOVERNOR TOM WOLF AND PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF LONG TERM LIVING THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO DAVID SMITH AND HIS HOMECARE WORKER DONALD LAMBRECHT IN THEIR CHALLENGE TO GOVERNOR WOLF'S EXECUTIVE ORDER UNIONIZING" DON AND 20,000 OTHER HOMECARE WORKERS AGAINST DAVID AND OTHER DISABLED OR ELDERLY HOMECARE RECIPIENTS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SOUGHT THE INVALIDATION OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDER AND TO PREVENT INVOLUNTARY EXTRACTION OF UNION DUES FROM HOMECARE WORKERS. THE LITIGATION HAD SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS BECAUSE THERE ARE 20,000 HOMECARE WORKERS AFFECTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND MANY MORE PARTIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO COULD BE UNIONIZED BY EXECUTIVE FIAT UNDER THE SAME THEORY. THE LITIGANTS RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. THE LITIGATION DID NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. WHILE THE IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT, THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE WERE RELATIVELY SMALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS. THE MISSION OF THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF ITS DONORS, GRANTS FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. FAIRNESS CENTER DID NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | VII. CASE NAME: THE FAIRNESS CENTER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ("DEPARTMENT") THE FAIRNESS CENTER SEEKS PUBLIC ACCESS TO NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR HOMECARE WORKERS AFFECTED BY GOVERNOR WOLF'S EXECUTIVE ORDER UNIONIZING HOMECARE WORKERS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SEEKS TO PROMOTE ACCESS TO OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND TO NOTIFY HOMECARE WORKERS OF THEIR RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE INCOMING UNION. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS BECAUSE THERE ARE 20,000 HOMECARE WORKERS AFFECTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND MANY MORE PARTIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO COULD BE UNIONIZED BY EXECUTIVE FIAT UNDER THE SAME THEORY. THE FAIRNESS CENTER HAS REQUESTED THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS TO THE FAIRNESS CENTER. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. THE MISSION OF THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF ITS DONORS, GRANTS FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. FAIRNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | VIII.CASE NAME: PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION V. THE FAIRNESS CENTER THE FAIRNESS CENTER SOUGHT AND WON PUBLIC ACCESS TO EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR STATE EMPLOYEES AND SUCCESSFULLY DEFEATED THE GOVERNMENTS' APPEAL. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT EMPOWERED CITIZENS TO CONTACT PUBLIC OFFICIALS, PROMOTED ACCESS TO OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND ALLOWED THE FAIRNESS CENTER TO CONTACT COLLEGE PROFESSORS AFFECTED BY AND POTENTIALLY UNAWARE OF APSCUF'S "DUES REBATE CAMPAIGN." THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS BECAUSE THERE ARE 6,000 PROFESSORS AND COACHES AFFECTED BY THE CAMPAIGN. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. THE MISSION OF THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF ITS DONORS, GRANTS FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. FAIRNESS CENTER DID NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | IX.CASE NAME: WILLIAM J. GREEN, IV, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION V. THOMAS W. WOLF, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; THE SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA; AND MARJORIE NEFF, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER AND PUTATIVE CHAIR OF THE SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO WILLIAM J. ("BILL") GREEN, IV IN HIS CHALLENGE TO GOVERNOR WOLF'S PUTATIVE REMOVAL OF BILL GREEN AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION IN PHILADELPHIA. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SEEKS ENFORCEMENT AND CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING LAW PROHIBITING SUCH REMOVAL UNLESS THE GOVERNOR PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF MISFEASANCE OR MALFEASANCE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS BECAUSE MANY CHAIRMAN IN VARIOUS STATE ENTITES ARE ENTITLED TO SIMILAR PROTECTIONS AND MAY BE SUBJECTED TO SIMILAR TREATMENT ABSENT ENFORCEMENT. THE LITIGANTS RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHER SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION MEMBERS RECEIVE NO SALARY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE, WHICH INVOLVES NO DAMAGES BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHER SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION MEMBERS RECEIVE NO SALARY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THE MISSION OF THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF ITS DONORS, GRANTS FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE FAIRNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | X.CASE NAME: STEVEN RAMOS; SCOTT ARMSTRONG; AND JAMES WILLIAMS V. ALLENTOWN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM; AND ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO TAXPAYERS STEVEN RAMOS AND SCOTT ARMSTRONG AND TO PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER AND VESTED PENSIONER JAMES WILLIAMS IN THEIR CHALLENGE TO ALLENTOWN'S LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF TAKING SCHOOL TEACHERS OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PERFORM FULL-TIME WORK FOR THE ALLENTOWN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO ENSURE LAWFUL AND PROPER USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND STRENGTHENING OF THE ALLENTOWN SCHOOL SYSTEM. ADDITIONALLY, THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, WHERE SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS ABOUND. THE LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. THE MISSION OF THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF ITS DONORS, GRANTS FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE FAIRNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11 | THE FORM 990 IS REVIEWED BY THE ORGANIZATION'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES PRIOR TO SIGNATURE AND FILING. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY IS REVIEWED AND MONITORED ANNUALLY AND ALL THE FAIRNESS CENTER, INC. OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MUST SIGN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDES THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS UPON REQUEST. |
| FORM 990, PART IX, LINE 11G | SHARED SERVICES: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 57,688. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 4,577. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 8,028. TOTAL EXPENSES 70,293. RESEARCH: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 4,593. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 637. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 114. TOTAL EXPENSES 5,344. SSA STAFFING: PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES 229,520. MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL EXPENSES 35,713. FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 6,582. TOTAL EXPENSES 271,815. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |