Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 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) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 416,661 | 307,885 | 517,325 | 1,291,800 | 1,566,789 | 4,100,460 |
| 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 | 1,291,800 | 1,566,789 | 4,100,460 |
| 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).. | 1,242,412 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 2,858,048 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 416,661 | 307,885 | 517,325 | 1,291,800 | 1,566,789 | 4,100,460 |
| 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 | 4,100,460 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (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) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (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 2019 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-2019 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2019 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2019: | ||||
| a From 2014....... | ||||
| b From 2015....... | ||||
| c From 2016....... | ||||
| d From 2017....... | ||||
| e From 2018....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2014 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2019 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2019, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2019. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2020. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2015..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| 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 ("PSEA"). THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO SCHOOLTEACHERS JANE LADLEY AND CHRIS MEIER, RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO FUND CHARITIES OF THEIR CHOICE. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON UNION NONMEMBERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO UNION NONMEMBER EMPLOYEES FROM HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, THROUGHOUT WHICH THE UNION'S POLICY OPERATES. THE LITIGANT RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED. 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. THE FAIRNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES BUT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. II. CASE NAME: TROMETTER V. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ("NEA") & PSEA THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO MARY TROMETTER, AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF CULINARY ARTS AT THE PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY. THE FAIRNESS CENTER REPRESENTED MARY TROMETTER IN HER CHALLENGE TO THE PSEA'S AND NEA'S USE OF DUES MONEY TO SUPPORT A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. THE 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 LITIGANT RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. THE LITIGATION WAS NOT ONE THAT WOULD WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. WHILE THE IMPACT WAS SIGNIFICANT, THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE WERE RELATIVELY SMALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. III. CASE NAME: LINDA MISJA V. PSEA THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO SCHOOLTEACHER LINDA MISJA, A RELIGIOUS OBJECTOR DENIED HER RIGHT TO FUND A CHARITY OF HER CHOICE. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON UNION NONMEMBERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO UNION NONMEMBER EMPLOYEES FROM HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DID NOT SUPPORT. ADDITIONALLY, THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, THROUGHOUT WHICH THE UNION'S POLICY OPERATES. THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WILL RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED FROM HER. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 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 BUT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. IV. CASE NAME: DAVID SMITH AND DONALD LAMBRECHT V. GOVERNOR THOMAS W. WOLF AND PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF LONG TERM LIVING THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES 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 IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SEEKS THE INVALIDATION OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDER AND TO PREVENT INVOLUNTARY EXTRACTION OF UNION DUES FROM HOMECARE WORKERS. THE LITIGATION HAS 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 RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. THE LITIGATION DOES 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. THE FAIRNESS CENTER DOES NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. V.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 PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO WILLIAM J. ("BILL") GREEN, IV IN HIS CHALLENGE TO GOVERNOR WOLF'S PUTATIVE REMOVAL OF BILL GREEN AS CHAIRMEN OF THE SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION IN PHILADELPHIA. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SOUGHT 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 HAD SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT BECAUSE MANY CHAIRMEN IN VARIOUS STATE ENTITIES ARE ENTITLED TO SIMILAR PROTECTIONS AND MAY BE SUBJECTED TO SIMILAR TREATMENT ABSENT ENFORCEMENT. THE LITIGANT RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN AND OTHER SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION MEMBERS RECEIVE NO SALARY FOR THEIR SERVICES. 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, WHICH INVOLVES NO DAMAGES. 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 DID NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. VI.CASE NAME: STEVEN RAMOS, SCOTT ARMSTRONG, AND JAMES WILLIAMS V. ALLENTOWN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT & (SEPARATE CASES)IN RE: APPEAL OF MELVIN RIDDICK & IN RE: APPEAL OF DEBRA TRETTER 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 AND ALLOWING THOSE TEACHERS TO RECEIVE RELEVANT PENSION CREDIT. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASES IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASES SEEK 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 AS ANY FINANCIAL BENEFIT WILL BE CONFERRED ON THE ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT. 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 |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | GENEROUS SUPPORT OF ITS DONORS, GRANTS FROM CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE FAIRNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. VII. CASE NAME: JAMES R. WILLIAMS V. PSEA THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO SCHOOLTEACHER JAMES R. WILLIAMS, A RELIGIOUS OBJECTOR DENIED HIS RIGHT TO FUND A CHARITY OF HIS CHOICE. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON UNION NONMEMBERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO UNION NONMEMBER EMPLOYEES FROM HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. ADDITIONALLY, THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, THROUGHOUT WHICH THE UNION'S POLICY OPERATES. THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WILL RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED FROM THEM. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 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 BUT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. VIII. CASE NAME: AMERICANS FOR FAIR TREATMENT V. READING EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND READING SCHOOL DISTRICT THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO LEGAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION AMERICANS FOR FAIR TREATMENT IN ITS CHALLENGE TO READING'S LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF TAKING SCHOOL TEACHERS OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PERFORM FULL-TIME WORK FOR THE READING EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASE WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SOUGHT TO ENSURE LAWFUL AND PROPER USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND TO STRENGTHEN THE READING SCHOOL SYSTEM. ADDITIONALLY, THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SOUGHT A RULING APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, WHERE SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS ABOUNDED. THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION AS ANY FINANCIAL BENEFIT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONFERRED ON THE READING SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 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 DID NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. IX. CASE NAME: GREGORY J. HARTNETT, ELIZABETH M. GALASKA, ROBERT G. BROUGH, JR., AND JOHN M. CRESS V. PSEA, HOMER-CENTER EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, TWIN VALLEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ELLWOOD AREA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, HOMER-CENTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, TWIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ELLWOOD CITY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, CHARLES KOREN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE HOMER-CENTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, ROBERT PLEIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE TWIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND JOE MANCINI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ELLWOOD CITY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO FOUR TEACHERS ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA IN THEIR CHALLENGE TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT PERMITTING EXTRACTING OF AGENCY FEES IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AS APPLIED TO THE STATES THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON UNION NONMEMBERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO UNION NONMEMBER EMPLOYEES FROM HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. ADDITIONALLY, THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SOUGHT A RULING APPLICABLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WHERE SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS ABOUND. THE LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WILL RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED FROM THEM. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 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 BUT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. X. CASE NAME: INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 825 ("LOCAL 825") V. UNIFORMED PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT, INC. ("UPFFA") THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO LOCAL 825 IN THEIR EFFORTS TO CONFIRM ITS RIGHT TO DISAFFILIATE FROM UPFFA AS A MATTER OF LAW. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON LOCAL UNION RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO LOCAL UNIONS FROM HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES IT DOES NOT SUPPORT. ADDITIONALLY, THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING APPLICABLE ACROSS THE STATE, WHERE SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS ABOUND. LOCAL 825 WILL RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM RETURN OF FUNDS TAKEN FROM LOCAL 825 USED IN VIOLATION OF UPFFA'S FIDUCIARY DUTY. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 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. XI. CASE NAME: MICHAEL CRONIN V. PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO MICHAEL CRONIN IN HIS CHALLENGE TO THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION'S ATTEMPT TO UNIONIZE" HIM AND OTHER GRADUATE ASSISTANTS AT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SOUGHT TO ENFORCE EXISTING PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AND TO PROTECT THE LITIGANT'S AND 4,000 OTHER GRADUATE ASSISTANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THE LITIGANT RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. THE LITIGATION DOES 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. THE FAIRNESS CENTER DOES NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | 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 TRUSTEES MUST SIGN THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15A | THE ORGANIZATION'S INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES REVIEWED COMPARABLE DATA IN SETTING THE PRESIDENT'S COMPENSATION AND EVALUATING HIS PERFORMANCE. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDES THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY UPON REQUEST. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |