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.") .. | 517,325 | 1,291,800 | 1,566,789 | 1,825,258 | 1,802,664 | 7,003,836 |
| 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 | 517,325 | 1,291,800 | 1,566,789 | 1,825,258 | 1,802,664 | 7,003,836 |
| 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).. | 2,899,638 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 4,104,198 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 517,325 | 1,291,800 | 1,566,789 | 1,825,258 | 1,802,664 | 7,003,836 |
| 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 | 7,003,836 | |||||
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 | THE FAIRNESS CENTER DETERMINES WHICH CASES TO ACCEPT BASED ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED, THE IMPACT FOR THE LITIGANT, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND NOT BASED ON ANY EXPECTATION OF FINANCIAL AWARD OR BENEFIT FOR THE FAIRNESS CENTER. GREGORY J. HARTNETT, ELIZABETH M. GALASKA, ROBERT G. BROUGH, JR., AND JOHN M. CRESS V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, 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 PROVIDED FREE LEGAL SERVICES TO FOUR PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC-SCHOOL TEACHERS LOCATED 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 SOUGHT TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON UNION NONMEMBERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO UNION NONMEMBER PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. ADDITIONALLY, THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SOUGHT A RULING APPLICABLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WHERE SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS ABOUND. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD 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. 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. THE FAIRNESS CENTER WILL NOT ACCEPT FEES FOR SERVICES. PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS IN THIS MATTER. IN RE ERIK GAGNE AND BARRY WALLETT. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO CONNECTICUT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT AND DISPARAGING MESSAGES POSTED ON UNION BULLETIN BOARDS AT THEIR PLACE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT BY CERTAIN UNION MEMBERS BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PLAINTIFFS' DECISION TO NOT BE UNION MEMBERS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO PROTECT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO NOT JOIN A UNION FROM ILLEGAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING WHICH PROHIBITS THE UNION AND EMPLOYER FROM PERMITTING THE HARASSMENT OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT NOT TO BE A UNION MEMBER AND AN ORDER THAT THE UNION AND EMPLOYER MUST NOTIFY EMPLOYEES OF THEIR RIGHT TO NOT BE A MEMBER OF A PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS AN ORDER TO REMOVE OFFENDING MESSAGES, PREVENT THE POSTING OF FUTURE MESSAGES, AND REQUIRE THE UNION AND EMPLOYER TO INFORM EMPLOYEES OF THEIR RIGHT TO NOT BE A MEMBER OF A PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT 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 AND ATTORNEYS' FEES HAVE NOT BEEN REQUESTED. MEGAN M. JAMES; WILLIAM A. LESTER; ANGELA PEASE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668; STEVE CATANESE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY; W. GERARD OLEKSIAK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY; THOMAS W. WOLF, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; MICHAEL NEWSOME, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION; ANNA MARIA KIEHL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO DISABILITY CLAIM ADJUDICATORS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH'S DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY WHO SOUGHT TO RESIGN FROM THEIR UNION, TO CEASE HAVING DUES FOR THE UNION DEDUCTED FROM THEIR WAGES AGAINST THEIR WILL, AND TO RECOVER THOSE SEIZED DUES. 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 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION IN ORDER TO AVOID 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. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT 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. 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. PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS IN THIS MATTER. MARK KIDDO, JOAN HORDUSKY, MIKE DZURKO, CHRISTINE ARNONE, JENNIE CLAY, MADELYN GROOVER, MELISSA GUZOWSKI, AND JEFF GRANGER V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206; AND ERIE WATER WORKS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO CITY OF ERIE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHOSE UNION BREACHED ITS DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION TO BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS WHEN THE LABOR UNION CONCEALED THE TERMS OF A PROPOSED FINAL OFFER FOR A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND INDUCED THE BARGAINING UNIT TO RATIFY AN ALTERNATIVE OFFER. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO EXPAND OR CLARIFY THE RIGHTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS WHEN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IS PRESENTED TO BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS AND RATIFIED BY THE LABOR UNION IN BAD FAITH. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING WHICH FURTHER DEFINES A UNION'S DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION TO BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM POSSIBLY RECOVERY OF LOSS OF WAGES AND BENEFITS. THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS TO EITHER ORDER A REVOTE ON THE EMPLOYER'S FINAL OFFER, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AWARD DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTING THE LOSS OF WAGES AND BENEFITS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE UNION'S MISREPRESENTATION. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE ARE RELATIVELY SMALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS AND 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. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT HAS RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. HOWEVER, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING. JANE LADLEY AND CHRISTOPHER MEIER V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ("PSEA"). THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO PLAINTIFF SCHOOLTEACHERS WHO WERE 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 PROTECT TWO 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. BASED ON THE COMPLAINT, 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. 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. PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT HAS RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING. JOHN R. KABLER, JR. V. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 1776 KEYSTONE STATE; WENDELL W. YOUNG, IV, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; MICHELE L. KESSLER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; PEG RHODES, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, PENNSYLVANIA WINE AND SPIRITS COUNCIL; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD; THOMAS W. WOLF, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; TIMOTHY HOLDEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD; MICHAEL NEWSOME, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION; ANNA MARIA KIEHL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER AND DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO WAS FORCED INTO UNION MEMBERSHIP AND WHO SOUGHT TO END HIS UNION MEMBERSHIP, CEASE DEDUCTIONS OF UNION DUES FROM HIS WAGES WHICH WERE BEING DEDUCTED AGAINST HIS WILL, AND TO RECOVER UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED FEES. 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 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO NOT JOIN A UNION, RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP, AND/OR END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION IN ORDER TO AVOID 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 REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD LIKELY RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, 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 THE PLAINTIFF. 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. PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER. PHUONG KIM NGUYEN AND VAN NGUYEN V. ADMINISTRATIVE AND RESIDUAL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 4200. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO CONNECTICUT STATE EMPLOYEES WHO SOUGHT TO RESIGN FROM THEIR PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION AND TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THAT UNION THEY NO LONGER SUPPORTED. 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 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION IN ORDER TO AVOID 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 CONNECTICUT, THROUGHOUT WHICH THE UNION'S POLICY OPERATES. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED 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 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS WERE RELATIVELY SMALL. 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. PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. THIS CASE WAS RESOLVED UNDER CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 825 ("LOCAL 825") V. UNIFORMED PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT, INC. ("UPFFA"). THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO LOCAL 825 IN ITS EFFORTS TO AFFIRM 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 THEY DO 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 BUT 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. PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER. FRANCISCO MOLINA V. PENNSYLVANIA SOCIAL SERVICE UNION, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668; STEPHEN CATANESE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF PENNSYLVANIA SOCIAL SERVICE UNION, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668; LEHIGH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; LEHIGH COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES; PHIL ARMSTRONG, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COUNTY EXECUTIVE OF LEHIGH COUNTY; AND M. JUDITH JOHNSTON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF LEHIGH COUNTY. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO RESIGN FROM HIS PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION AND TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THAT UNION HE NO LONGER SUPPORTED. 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 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, THROUGHOUT WHICH THE UNIONS' POLICY OPERATES. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED 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 FOR THE PLAINTIFF WERE RELATIVELY SMALL. 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. PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER. WILLIAM WEYANDT, MARK MILLS, CHRIS TAYLOR, BRANDON WESTOVER, CORY YEDLOSKY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS AFFILIATES; THOMAS W. WOLF, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; MICHAEL NEWSOME, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION; AND BRIAN T. LYMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SOUGHT TO RESIGN FROM THEIR PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION AND TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THAT UNION THEY NO LONGER SUPPORTED. 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 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, THROUGHOUT WHICH THE UNIONS' POLICY OPERATES. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED 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 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS WERE RELATIVELY SMALL. 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. PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS IN THIS MATTER. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR V. LINDSEY WANNER AND THE FAIRNESS CENTER. THE FAIRNESS CENTER REQUESTED PUBLIC RECORDS FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA'S RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER WHICH CREATED A PATHWAY TO UNIONIZE HOMECARE WORKERS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT IT SEEKS TO SCRUTINIZE THE WORK PERFORMED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN IMPLEMENTING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY UNIONIZE AN ENTIRELY NEW CLASS OF PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS. THE LITIGATION HAS SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING ALLOWING FOR ACCESS TO NONPRIVILEGED, PUBLIC RECORDS CONCERNING THE GOVERNOR'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH LABOR UNIONS. 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, THERE ARE NO FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE IN THE LITIGATION. 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 AND HAS NOT REQUESTED ATTORNEYS' FEES. 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 PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO PLAINTIFFS, TWO TAXPAYERS AND A PUBLIC SCHOOLTEACHER/VESTED PENSIONER, IN THEIR CHALLENGE TO ALLENTOWN'S LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF TAKING SCHOOLTEACHERS 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 RECEIVED 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. ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE NOT REQUESTED IN THIS MATTER. LINDA MISJA V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A PUBLIC SCHOOLTEACHER, 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 DO NOT SUPPORT. ADDITIONALLY, THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE 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. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED 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 FOR THE PLAINTIFF ARE RELATIVELY SMALL. 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. PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT HAS RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING. JAMES R. WILLIAMS V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A PUBLIC SCHOOLTEACHER, 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 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. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED, IF ANY. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL TO A PRIVATE LAW FIRM TO TAKE THE CASE. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | WHILE THE IMPACT IS SIGNIFICANT, THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE FOR THE PLAINTIFF WERE RELATIVELY SMALL. 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. PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT HAS RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING. CORY YEDLOSKY; WILLIAM WEYANDT; AND CHRIS TAYLOR V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL SCI-HUNTINGDON; DOUGLAS CLARK, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITIES; BRYAN PERONI, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITIES; AND PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO THREE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK ANSWERS RELATED TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF THEIR PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION'S FUNDS THAT WERE EXPENDED IN VIOLATION OF UNION RULES. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THE CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO CLARIFY THE RIGHTS THAT UNION MEMBERS HAVE TO HOLD UNIONS ACCOUNTABLE FOR FOLLOWING RULES REGARDING THE HANDLING OF MEMBER DUES. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING WHICH FURTHER DEFINES A UNION'S DUTY TO BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS IN THE HANDLING OF UNION MEMBERS' FUNDS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION ASIDE FROM RETURN OF FUNDS TAKEN FROM UNION MEMBERS BUT EXPENDED IN VIOLATION OF THE UNION'S RULES. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE ARE RELATIVELY SMALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS AND 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. PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT HAS RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. HOWEVER, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING. RALPH R. RHODES V. AFSCME, COUNCIL 13; AND DAVID R. FILLMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AFSCME, COUNCIL 13. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO RESIGNED FROM HIS PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION AND SOUGHT TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THAT UNION HE NO LONGER SUPPORTED. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SOUGHT TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. THE LITIGATION HAD THE POTENTIAL TO SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT INTERESTS BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, THROUGHOUT WHICH THE UNION'S POLICIES OPERATED. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM RECOVERING NOMINAL DAMAGES AND UNION DUES WRONGFULLY DEDUCTED FROM HIS WAGES. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE FOR THE PLAINTIFF WERE RELATIVELY SMALL AND 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. PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER. LUANN ZEIGLER V. AFSCME, COUNCIL 13; MICHAEL NEWSOME, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION; BRIAN T. LYMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO RESIGNED FROM HER PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION AND SOUGHT TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THAT UNION SHE NO LONGER SUPPORTED. 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 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, THROUGHOUT WHICH THE UNION'S POLICY OPERATES. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED 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 FOR THE PLAINTIFF WERE RELATIVELY SMALL. 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. PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WERE OBTAINED IN THIS MATTER. LUANN ZEIGLER V. AFSCME, COUNCIL 13; AFSCME, DISTRICT COUNCIL 84; AFSCME, LOCAL 1985. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO MISREPRESENTATIONS BY UNION OFFICIALS AND THE BREACH OF HER RIGHT TO VOTE ON A CONTRACT AS A UNION MEMBER. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SOUGHT TO EXPAND OR CLARIFY THE RIGHTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS TO ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT UNION MEMBERSHIP AND TO ENFORCE THEIR MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SOUGHT A RULING WHICH FURTHER DEFINED A UNION'S DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION TO BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM POSSIBLE RECOVERY OF UNION DUES WRONGFULLY PAID. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE FOR THE PLAINTIFF WERE RELATIVELY SMALL AND 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. PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WERE OBTAINED IN THIS MATTER. ELIZABETH MCKEON V. AFSCME, COUNCIL 13; MICHAEL NEWSOME, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION; BRIAN T. LYMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO RESIGN FROM HER PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION AND TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THAT UNION SHE NO LONGER SUPPORTED. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SOUGHT TO CLARIFY OR EXPAND UPON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. |
| PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED | THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS PENNSYLVANIA, THROUGHOUT WHICH THE UNION'S POLICY OPERATES. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND A RETURN OF FUNDS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEIZED. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED 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 FOR THE PLAINTIFF WERE RELATIVELY SMALL. 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. PLAINTIFF'S OPERATIVE COMPLAINT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WERE OBTAINED IN THIS MATTER. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | THE FORM 990 IS REVIEWED (APPROVED) BY THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL AND IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INPUT PRIOR TO FILING. THE BOARD RATIFIES THE FILED RETURN AT A LATER DATE. |
| 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, CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS UPON REQUEST. |
| PART XII, LINE 2C | THE ORGANIZATION'S PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL AND VICE PRESIDENT/CORPORATE COUNSEL ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDIT AND SELECTION OF AN INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT. THE AUDITED FINANCIALS AND INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT SELECTION ARE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR FINAL APPROVAL. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |