Form990
Click to see attachment
Click to see attachment
Click to see attachment
Department of the TreasuryInternal Revenue Service
Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax
Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (except private foundations)
MediumBullet Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public.
MediumBullet Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2021
Open to Public Inspection
A For the 2021 calendar year, or tax year beginning 10-01-2021 , and ending 09-30-2022
BCheck if applicable:
CName of organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
 
 
Doing business as
 
 
Number and street (or P.O. box if mail is not delivered to street address)
PO BOX 54597
 
Room/suite
City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK73118
D Employer identification number

46-4482738
E Telephone number

G Gross receipts $ 3,304,423
F Name and address of principal officer:
NATHAN J MCGRATH
500 NORTH THIRD STREET SUITE 600B
HARRISBURG,PA171011167
I
Tax-exempt status: (   ) LeftBullet (insert no.) or
J
Website:MediumBullet
WWW.FAIRNESSCENTER.ORG
H(a)
Is this a group return for
subordinates?
H(b)
Are all subordinates
included?
If "No," attach a list. See instructions.
H(c)
Group exemption number MediumBullet  
K Form of organization:  
L Year of formation: 2014
M State of legal domicile: OK
Part I
Summary
Activities & Governance 1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: THE FAIRNESS CENTER, INC. IS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT LITIGATION AS A (A) LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION; (B) HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE ORGANIZATION; (C) PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM; AND (D) ORGANIZATION ATTEMPTING TO ACHIEVE CHARITABLE GOALS THROUGH INSTITUTION OF LITIGATION AS PLAINTIFF.
2 Check this box MediumBullet
3 Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) ........ 3 4
4 Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) ..... 4 3
5 Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2021 (Part V, line 2a) ...... 5 13
6 Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) ............. 6 4
7a Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 ........ 7a 0
b Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, Part I, line 11 ......... 7b 0
Revenues Prior Year Current Year
8 Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) ......... 2,801,596 3,233,315
9 Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) ......... 25,868 55,087
10 Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) .... 840 12,539
11 Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e) 2,050 3,482
12 Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12) 2,830,354 3,304,423
Expenses; 13 Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 )... 0 0
14 Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4)..... 0 0
15 Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10) 1,323,251 1,821,595
16a Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) ..... 0 0
b Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) MediumBullet190,372    
17 Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e).... 668,082 888,114
18 Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) 1,991,333 2,709,709
19 Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12....... 839,021 594,714
Net Assets or Fund Balances; Beginning of Current Year End of Year
20 Total assets (Part X, line 16)............. 2,132,562 2,733,745
21 Total liabilities (Part X, line 26)............. 95,498 101,967
22 Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20..... 2,037,064 2,631,778
Part II
Signature Block
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than officer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.
Sign Here
JumboBullet
Signature of officer Date
JumboBullet
Type or print name and title
Paid Preparer Use Only
Print/Type preparer's name
Preparer's signature
Date
PTIN
Firm's name MediumBullet

Firm's EIN MediumBullet
Firm's address MediumBullet



Phone no.
May the IRS discuss this return with the preparer shown above? (see instructions) ..........
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions.
Cat. No. 11282Y Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 2
Part III
Statement of Program Service Accomplishments
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part III..............
1
Briefly describe the organization’s mission: THE FAIRNESS CENTER, INC. IS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT LITIGATION AS A (A) LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION; (B) HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE ORGANIZATION; (C) PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM; AND (D) ORGANIZATION ATTEMPTING TO ACHIEVE CHARITABLE GOALS THROUGH INSTITUTION OF LITIGATION AS PLAINTIFF.
2
Did the organization undertake any significant program services during the year which were not listed on
the prior Form 990 or 990-EZ? .....................
If "Yes," describe these new services on Schedule O.
3
Did the organization cease conducting, or make significant changes in how it conducts, any program
services? ...........................
If "Yes," describe these changes on Schedule O.
4
Describe the organization’s program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses. Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are required to report the amount of grants and allocations to others, the total expenses, and revenue, if any, for each program service reported.
4a (Code:   ) (Expenses $ 1,938,303 including grants of $   ) (Revenue $ 55,087 )
LEGAL SERVICES; THE FAIRNESS CENTER, INC. PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO THOSE HURT BY PUBLIC SECTOR UNION OFFICIALS. SEE SCHEDULE O FOR A DESCRIPTION OF CASES LITIGATED AND THE RATIONALE FOR THE DETERMINATION THAT THE LITIGATION BENEFITS THE PUBLIC GENERALLY.
4b (Code:   ) (Expenses $   including grants of $   ) (Revenue $   )
4c (Code:   ) (Expenses $   including grants of $   ) (Revenue $   )
4d Other program services (Describe in Schedule O.)
(Expenses $   including grants of $   ) (Revenue $   )
4e Total program service expensesMediumBullet1,938,303
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 3
Part IV
Checklist of Required Schedules
Yes
No
1
Is the organization described in section 501(c)(3) or 4947(a)(1) (other than a private foundation)? If "Yes," complete Schedule AClick to see attachment.....................
1
Yes
 
2
Is the organization required to complete Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors? See instructions. Click to see attachment...
2
Yes
 
3
Did the organization engage in direct or indirect political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part I.............
3
 
No
4
Section 501(c)(3) organizations. Did the organization engage in lobbying activities, or have a section 501(h) election in effect during the tax year? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part II.........
4
 
No
5
Is the organization a section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) organization that receives membership dues, assessments, or similar amounts as defined in Rev. Proc. 98-19? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part III..
5
 
No
6
Did the organization maintain any donor advised funds or any similar funds or accounts for which donors have the right to provide advice on the distribution or investment of amounts in such funds or accounts? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IClick to see attachment.........................
6
 
No
7
Did the organization receive or hold a conservation easement, including easements to preserve open space,
the environment, historic land areas, or historic structures? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IIClick to see attachment....
7
 
No
8
Did the organization maintain collections of works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets? If "Yes,"
complete Schedule D, Part IIIClick to see attachment..............
8
 
No
9
Did the organization report an amount in Part X, line 21 for escrow or custodial account liability; serve as a custodian for amounts not listed in Part X; or provide credit counseling, debt management, credit repair, or debt negotiation services? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IVClick to see attachment..............
9
 
No
10
Did the organization, directly or through a related organization, hold assets in temporarily restricted endowments, permanent endowments, or quasi endowments? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part V......
10
 
No
11
If the organization’s answer to any of the following questions is "Yes," then complete Schedule D, Parts VI, VII, VIII, IX, or X, as applicable.
a
Did the organization report an amount for land, buildings, and equipment in Part X, line 10? If "Yes," complete
Schedule D, Part VI. Click to see attachment...................
11a
Yes
 
b
Did the organization report an amount for investments—other securities in Part X, line 12 that is 5% or more of its total assets reported in Part X, line 16? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part VIIClick to see attachment.......
11b
 
No
c
Did the organization report an amount for investments—program related in Part X, line 13 that is 5% or more of its total assets reported in Part X, line 16? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part VIIIClick to see attachment.......
11c
 
No
d
Did the organization report an amount for other assets in Part X, line 15 that is 5% or more of its total assets reported in Part X, line 16? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IXClick to see attachment............
11d
 
No
e
Did the organization report an amount for other liabilities in Part X, line 25? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part XClick to see attachment
11e
Yes
 
f
Did the organization’s separate or consolidated financial statements for the tax year include a footnote that addresses the organization’s liability for uncertain tax positions under FIN 48 (ASC 740)? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part XClick to see attachment
11f
Yes
 
12a
Did the organization obtain separate, independent audited financial statements for the tax year? If "Yes," complete
Schedule D, Parts XI and XIIClick to see attachment......................
12a
Yes
 
b
Was the organization included in consolidated, independent audited financial statements for the tax year? If "Yes," and if the organization answered "No" to line 12a, then completing Schedule D, Parts XI and XII is optional Click to see attachment
12b
 
No
13
Is the organization a school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)? If "Yes," complete Schedule E
13
 
No
14a
Did the organization maintain an office, employees, or agents outside of the United States? .....
14a
 
No
b
Did the organization have aggregate revenues or expenses of more than $10,000 from grantmaking, fundraising, business, investment, and program service activities outside the United States, or aggregate foreign investments valued at $100,000 or more? If "Yes," complete Schedule F, Parts I and IV.........
14b
 
No
15
Did the organization report on Part IX, column (A), line 3, more than $5,000 of grants or other assistance to or for any foreign organization? If “Yes,” complete Schedule F, Parts II and IV.....
15
 
No
16
Did the organization report on Part IX, column (A), line 3, more than $5,000 of aggregate grants or other assistance to or for foreign individuals? If “Yes,” complete Schedule F, Parts III and IV...
16
 
No
17
Did the organization report a total of more than $15,000 of expenses for professional fundraising services on Part IX, column (A), lines 6 and 11e? If "Yes," complete Schedule G, Part I. See instructions. ....
17
 
No
18
Did the organization report more than $15,000 total of fundraising event gross income and contributions on Part VIII, lines 1c and 8a? If "Yes," complete Schedule G, Part II............
18
 
No
19
Did the organization report more than $15,000 of gross income from gaming activities on Part VIII, line 9a? If "Yes," complete Schedule G, Part III...................
19
 
No
20a
Did the organization operate one or more hospital facilities? If "Yes," complete Schedule H....
20a
 
No
b
If "Yes" to line 20a, did the organization attach a copy of its audited financial statements to this return?
20b
 
 
21
Did the organization report more than $5,000 of grants or other assistance to any domestic organization or domestic government on Part IX, column (A), line 1? If “Yes,” complete Schedule I, Parts I and II.....
21
 
No
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 4
Part IV
Checklist of Required Schedules (continued)
Yes
No
22
Did the organization report more than $5,000 of grants or other assistance to or for domestic individuals on Part IX, column (A), line 2? If “Yes,” complete Schedule I, Parts I and III........
22
 
No
23
Did the organization answer "Yes" to Part VII, Section A, line 3, 4, or 5, about compensation of the organization’s current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees? If "Yes," complete Schedule J....................... Click to see attachment
23
Yes
 
24a
Did the organization have a tax-exempt bond issue with an outstanding principal amount of more than $100,000 as of the last day of the year, that was issued after December 31, 2002? If “Yes,” answer lines 24b through 24d and complete Schedule K. If “No,” go to line 25a...............
24a
 
No
b
Did the organization invest any proceeds of tax-exempt bonds beyond a temporary period exception?...
24b
 
 
c
Did the organization maintain an escrow account other than a refunding escrow at any time during the year
to defease any tax-exempt bonds? ...............
24c
 
 
d
Did the organization act as an "on behalf of" issuer for bonds outstanding at any time during the year?...
24d
 
 
25a
Section 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(29) organizations. Did the organization engage in an excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person during the year? If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part I ....
25a
 
No
b
Is the organization aware that it engaged in an excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person in a prior year, and that the transaction has not been reported on any of the organization’s prior Forms 990 or 990-EZ? If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part I.......................
25b
 
No
26
Did the organization report any amount on Part X, line 5 or 22 for receivables from or payables to any current or former officer, director, trustee, key employee, creator or founder, substantial contributor, or 35% controlled entity or family member of any of these persons? If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part II...........
26
 
No
27
Did the organization provide a grant or other assistance to any current or former officer, director, trustee, key employee, creator or founder, substantial contributor, or employee thereof, a grant selection committee member, or to a 35% controlled entity (including an employee thereof) or family member of any of these persons?
If "Yes," complete
Schedule L, Part III.........................
27
 
No
28
Was the organization a party to a business transaction with one of the following parties (see the Schedule L, Part IV instructions for applicable filing thresholds, conditions, and exceptions):
a
A current or former officer, director, trustee, key employee, creator or founder, or substantial contributor? If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part IV......................
28a
 
No
b
A family member of any individual described in line 28a? If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part IV.....
28b
 
No
c
A 35% controlled entity of one or more individuals and/or organizations described in line 28a or 28b? If "Yes," complete Schedule L, Part IV.....................
28c
 
No
29
Did the organization receive more than $25,000 in non-cash contributions? If "Yes," complete Schedule M..Click to see attachment
29
Yes
 
30
Did the organization receive contributions of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets, or qualified conservation contributions? If "Yes," complete Schedule M .................Click to see attachment
30
 
No
31
Did the organization liquidate, terminate, or dissolve and cease operations? If "Yes," complete Schedule N, Part I
31
 
No
32
Did the organization sell, exchange, dispose of, or transfer more than 25% of its net assets? If "Yes," complete Schedule N, Part II........................
32
 
No
33
Did the organization own 100% of an entity disregarded as separate from the organization under Regulations sections 301.7701-2 and 301.7701-3? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part I............
33
 
No
34
Was the organization related to any tax-exempt or taxable entity? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part II, III, or IV, and Part V, line 1.........................
34
 
No
35a
Did the organization have a controlled entity within the meaning of section 512(b)(13)?
35a
 
No
b
If ‘Yes’ to line 35a, did the organization receive any payment from or engage in any transaction with a controlled entity within the meaning of section 512(b)(13)? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part V, line 2 ...
35b
 
 
36
Section 501(c)(3) organizations. Did the organization make any transfers to an exempt non-charitable related organization? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part V, line 2.............
36
 
No
37
Did the organization conduct more than 5% of its activities through an entity that is not a related organization and that is treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes? If "Yes," complete Schedule R, Part VI
37
 
No
38
Did the organization complete Schedule O and provide explanations on Schedule O for Part VI, lines 11b and 19? Note. All Form 990 filers are required to complete Schedule O. ............
38
Yes
 
Part V
Statements Regarding Other IRS Filings and Tax Compliance
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part V...........
Yes
No
1a
Enter the number reported in box 3 of Form 1096. Enter -0- if not applicable ..
1a
10
b
Enter the number of Forms W-2G included on line 1a. Enter -0- if not applicable .
1b
0
c
Did the organization comply with backup withholding rules for reportable payments to vendors and reportable gaming (gambling) winnings to prize winners? ..................
1c
Yes
 
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 5
Part V
Statements Regarding Other IRS Filings and Tax Compliance (continued)
2a
Enter the number of employees reported on Form W-3, Transmittal of Wage and
Tax Statements, filed for the calendar year ending with or within the year covered by this return ..................
2a
13
b
If at least one is reported on line 2a, did the organization file all required federal employment tax returns?
Note. If the sum of lines 1a and 2a is greater than 250, you may be required to e-file. See instructions.
2b
Yes
 
3a
Did the organization have unrelated business gross income of $1,000 or more during the year?...
3a
 
No
b
If “Yes,” has it filed a Form 990-T for this year? If “No” to line 3b, provide an explanation in Schedule O...
3b
 
 
4a
At any time during the calendar year, did the organization have an interest in, or a signature or other authority over, a financial account in a foreign country (such as a bank account, securities account, or other financial account)? ..
4a
 
No
b
If "Yes," enter the name of the foreign country: MediumBullet
See instructions for filing requirements for FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR).
5a
Was the organization a party to a prohibited tax shelter transaction at any time during the tax year? ..
5a
 
No
b
Did any taxable party notify the organization that it was or is a party to a prohibited tax shelter transaction?
5b
 
No
c
If "Yes," to line 5a or 5b, did the organization file Form 8886-T? ............
5c
 
 
6a
Does the organization have annual gross receipts that are normally greater than $100,000, and did the organization solicit any contributions that were not tax deductible as charitable contributions? ...
6a
 
No
b
If "Yes," did the organization include with every solicitation an express statement that such contributions or gifts were not tax deductible? ......................
6b
 
 
7
Organizations that may receive deductible contributions under section 170(c).
a
Did the organization receive a payment in excess of $75 made partly as a contribution and partly for goods and services provided to the payor? ....................
7a
 
No
b
If "Yes," did the organization notify the donor of the value of the goods or services provided? .....
7b
 
 
c
Did the organization sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of tangible personal property for which it was required to file Form 8282? .........................
7c
 
No
d
If "Yes," indicate the number of Forms 8282 filed during the year ....
7d
 
e
Did the organization receive any funds, directly or indirectly, to pay premiums on a personal benefit contract?
7e
 
No
f
Did the organization, during the year, pay premiums, directly or indirectly, on a personal benefit contract? ..
7f
 
No
g
If the organization received a contribution of qualified intellectual property, did the organization file Form 8899 as required? ......................
7g
 
 
h
If the organization received a contribution of cars, boats, airplanes, or other vehicles, did the organization file a Form 1098-C? ..........................
7h
 
 
8
Sponsoring organizations maintaining donor advised funds. Did a donor advised fund maintained by the sponsoring organization have excess business holdings at any time during the year? ........
8
 
 
9
Sponsoring organizations maintaining donor advised funds.
a
Did the sponsoring organization make any taxable distributions under section 4966?........
9a
 
 
b
Did the sponsoring organization make a distribution to a donor, donor advisor, or related person?...
9b
 
 
10
Section 501(c)(7) organizations. Enter:
a
Initiation fees and capital contributions included on Part VIII, line 12 ...
10a
 
b
Gross receipts, included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12, for public use of club facilities
10b
 
11
Section 501(c)(12) organizations. Enter:
a
Gross income from members or shareholders .........
11a
 
b
Gross income from other sources. (Do not net amounts due or paid to other sources against amounts due or received from them.) ..........
11b
 
12a
Section 4947(a)(1) non-exempt charitable trusts. Is the organization filing Form 990 in lieu of Form 1041?
12a
 
 
b
If "Yes," enter the amount of tax-exempt interest received or accrued during the year.
12b
 
13
Section 501(c)(29) qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers.
a
Is the organization licensed to issue qualified health plans in more than one state? .........
Note. See the instructions for additional information the organization must report on Schedule O.
13a
 
 
b
Enter the amount of reserves the organization is required to maintain by the states in which the organization is licensed to issue qualified health plans ....
13b
 
c
Enter the amount of reserves on hand ............
13c
 
14a
Did the organization receive any payments for indoor tanning services during the tax year?.....
14a
 
No
b
If "Yes," has it filed a Form 720 to report these payments? If "No," provide an explanation in Schedule O..
14b
 
 
15
Is the organization subject to the section 4960 tax on payment(s) of more than $1,000,000 in remuneration or excess parachute payment(s) during the year? ....................
If "Yes," see the instructions and file Form 4720, Schedule N.
15
 
No
16
Is the organization an educational institution subject to the section 4968 excise tax on net investment income? ..
If "Yes," complete Form 4720, Schedule O.
16
 
No
17
Section 501(c)(21) organizations. Did the trust, any disqualified person, or mine operator engage in any activities that would result in the imposition of an excise tax under section 4951, 4952, or 4953? ..
If "Yes," complete Form 6069.
17
 
 
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 6
Part VI
Governance, Management, and Disclosure. For each "Yes" response to lines 2 through 7b below, and for a "No" response to lines 8a, 8b, or 10b below, describe the circumstances, processes, or changes in Schedule O. See instructions.
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part VI..............
Section A. Governing Body and Management
Yes
No
1a
Enter the number of voting members of the governing body at the end of the tax year
1a
4
If there are material differences in voting rights among members of the governing body, or if the governing body delegated broad authority to an executive committee or similar committee, explain in Schedule O.
b
Enter the number of voting members included in line 1a, above, who are independent
1b
3
2
Did any officer, director, trustee, or key employee have a family relationship or a business relationship with any other officer, director, trustee, or key employee? .................
2
 
No
3
Did the organization delegate control over management duties customarily performed by or under the direct supervision of officers, directors or trustees, or key employees to a management company or other person? .
3
 
No
4
Did the organization make any significant changes to its governing documents since the prior Form 990 was filed? .
4
 
No
5
Did the organization become aware during the year of a significant diversion of the organization’s assets? .
5
 
No
6
Did the organization have members or stockholders? ................
6
 
No
7a
Did the organization have members, stockholders, or other persons who had the power to elect or appoint one or more members of the governing body? ....................
7a
 
No
b
Are any governance decisions of the organization reserved to (or subject to approval by) members, stockholders, or persons other than the governing body? ...................
7b
 
No
8
Did the organization contemporaneously document the meetings held or written actions undertaken during the year by the following:
a
The governing body? .......................
8a
Yes
 
b
Each committee with authority to act on behalf of the governing body? ............
8b
Yes
 
9
Is there any officer, director, trustee, or key employee listed in Part VII, Section A, who cannot be reached at the organization’s mailing address? If "Yes," provide the names and addresses in Schedule O.......
9
 
No
Section B. Policies (This Section B requests information about policies not required by the Internal Revenue Code.)
Yes
No
10a
Did the organization have local chapters, branches, or affiliates? ............
10a
 
No
b
If "Yes," did the organization have written policies and procedures governing the activities of such chapters, affiliates, and branches to ensure their operations are consistent with the organization's exempt purposes?
10b
 
 
11a
Has the organization provided a complete copy of this Form 990 to all members of its governing body before filing the form? ............................
11a
Yes
 
b
Describe on Schedule O the process, if any, used by the organization to review this Form 990. .....
12a
Did the organization have a written conflict of interest policy? If "No," go to line 13.......
12a
Yes
 
b
Were officers, directors, or trustees, and key employees required to disclose annually interests that could give rise to conflicts? ..........................
12b
Yes
 
c
Did the organization regularly and consistently monitor and enforce compliance with the policy? If "Yes," describe on Schedule O how this was done...................
12c
Yes
 
13
Did the organization have a written whistleblower policy? ...............
13
Yes
 
14
Did the organization have a written document retention and destruction policy? .........
14
Yes
 
15
Did the process for determining compensation of the following persons include a review and approval by independent persons, comparability data, and contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and decision?
a
The organization’s CEO, Executive Director, or top management official ...........
15a
Yes
 
b
Other officers or key employees of the organization ................
15b
 
No
If "Yes" to line 15a or 15b, describe the process on Schedule O. See instructions.
16a
Did the organization invest in, contribute assets to, or participate in a joint venture or similar arrangement with a taxable entity during the year? ......................
16a
 
No
b
If "Yes," did the organization follow a written policy or procedure requiring the organization to evaluate its participation in joint venture arrangements under applicable federal tax law, and take steps to safeguard the organization’s exempt status with respect to such arrangements? ............
16b
 
 
Section C. Disclosure
17
List the states with which a copy of this Form 990 is required to be filedMediumBullet
AL , AR , CA , CO , CT , FL , GA , IL , KS , KY , ME , MD , MA , MI , MN , MS , NH , NJ , NY , NC , ND , OH , OR , PA , RI , SC , TN , VA , WV , WI
18
Section 6104 requires an organization to make its Form 1023 (1024 or 1024-A, if applicable), 990, and 990-T (section 501(c)(3)s only) available for public inspection. Indicate how you made these available. Check all that apply.
19
Describe in Schedule O whether (and if so, how) the organization made its governing documents, conflict of interest policy, and financial statements available to the public during the tax year.
20
State the name, address, and telephone number of the person who possesses the organization's books and records:
MediumBulletMCGILL POWER BELL AND ASSOCIATES LLP128 E CENTRAL AVE STE B   TITUSVILLE,PA16354 (814) 827-3657
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 7
Part VII
Compensation of Officers, Directors,Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part VII..............
Section A. Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees
1a Complete this table for all persons required to be listed. Report compensation for the calendar year ending with or within the organization’s tax year.
RoundBullet List all of the organization’s current officers, directors, trustees (whether individuals or organizations), regardless of amount
of compensation. Enter -0- in columns (D), (E), and (F) if no compensation was paid.

RoundBullet List all of the organization’s current key employees, if any. See the instructions for definition of "key employee."
RoundBullet List the organization’s five current highest compensated employees (other than an officer, director, trustee or key employee)
who received reportable compensation (box 5 of Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and/or box 1 of Form 1099-NEC) of more than $100,000 from the
organization and any related organizations.

RoundBullet List all of the organization’s former officers, key employees, or highest compensated employees who received more than $100,000
of reportable compensation from the organization and any related organizations.

RoundBullet List all of the organization’s former directors or trustees that received, in the capacity as a former director or trustee of the
organization, more than $10,000 of reportable compensation from the organization and any related organizations.

See the instructions for the order in which to list the persons above.
Check this box if neither the organization nor any related organization compensated any current officer, director, or trustee.
(A)
Name and title 		(B)
Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line) 		(C)
Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee) 		(D)
Reportable compensation from the organization (W-2/1099-MISC/1099-NEC) 		(E)
Reportable compensation from related organizations (W-2/1099-MISC/1099-NEC) 		(F)
Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
Individual Trustee or Director; Institutional Trustee; OfficerInd; Key Employee; Highest compensated employee; FormerOfcrDirectorTrusteeInd;
(1) NATHAN J MCGRATH......................................................................
PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL
 50.00
.................
  		X   X       277,238 0 20,484
(2) MICHAEL CARNUCCIO......................................................................
TREASURER & TRUSTEE
 2.00
.................
  		X   X       0 0 0
(3) AARON D MARTIN......................................................................
SECRETARY & TRUSTEE
 2.00
.................
  		X   X       0 0 0
(4) BRENT MOON......................................................................
TRUSTEE
 2.00
.................
  		X           0 0 0
(5) MATTHEW L GARBER......................................................................
VICE PRESIDENT & CORPORATE COUNSEL
 40.00
.................
  		        X   156,643 0 21,403
(6) DANIELLE R ACKER SUSANJ......................................................................
VICE PRESIDENT & SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL
 30.00
.................
  		        X   122,500 0 3,589
(7) TYLER PATTERSON......................................................................
LITIGATION COUNSEL
 40.00
.................
  		        X   118,576 0 10,599




















Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 8
Part VII
Section A. Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees (continued)
(A)
Name and title 		(B)
Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line) 		(C)
Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee) 		(D)
Reportable compensation from the organization (W-2/1099-MISC/1099-NEC) 		(E)
Reportable compensation from related organizations (W-2/1099-MISC/1099-NEC) 		(F)
Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
Individual Trustee or Director; Institutional Trustee; OfficerInd; Key Employee; Highest compensated employee; FormerOfcrDirectorTrusteeInd;


























1b Sub-Total................MediumBullet
c Total from continuation sheets to Part VII, Section A....MediumBullet
d Total (add lines 1b and 1c)...........MediumBullet 674,957 0 56,075
2
Total number of individuals (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of reportable compensation from the organization MediumBullet4
Yes
No
3
Did the organization list any former officer, director or trustee, key employee, or highest compensated employee on line 1a? If "Yes," complete Schedule J for such individual ..............
3
 
No
4
For any individual listed on line 1a, is the sum of reportable compensation and other compensation from the organization and related organizations greater than $150,000? If "Yes," complete Schedule J for such
individual...........................
4
Yes
 
5
Did any person listed on line 1a receive or accrue compensation from any unrelated organization or individual for services rendered to the organization? If "Yes," complete Schedule J for such person ........
5
 
No
Section B. Independent Contractors
1
Complete this table for your five highest compensated independent contractors that received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization. Report compensation for the calendar year ending with or within the organization’s tax year.
(A)
Name and business address 		(B)
Description of services 		(C)
Compensation
2
Total number of independent contractors (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization MediumBullet0
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 9
Part VIII
Statement of Revenue
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part VIII.............
(A)
Total revenue 		(B)
Related or
exempt
function
revenue 		(C)
Unrelated
business
revenue 		(D)
Revenue
excluded from
tax under sections
512 - 514
Contributions, Gifts, Grants, and OtherAmt Similar Amounts 1a Federated campaigns..1a  
b Membership dues..1b  
c Fundraising events..1c  
d Related organizations1d  
e Government grants (contributions)1e  
f All other contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts not included above1f 3,233,315
g Noncash contributions included in lines 1a - 1f:$ 1g 306,602
h Total. Add lines 1a-1f.......MediumBullet 3,233,315
Program Service RevenueAmt Business Code
2a NON-CLIENT LEGAL FEES 541100 55,087 55,087    
b
c
d
e
f All other program service revenue.        
g Total. Add lines 2a–2f .....MediumBullet 55,087
OtherAmtRevenueAmt 3 Investment income (including dividends, interest, and othersimilar amounts) ......MediumBullet 6,324     6,324
4 Income from investment of tax-exempt bond proceedsMediumBullet        
5 Royalties...........MediumBullet        
(ii) Personal (i) Real
6a Gross rents     6a
b Less: rental expenses     6b
c Rental income or (loss)     6c
d Net rental income or (loss).......MediumBullet        
(ii) Other (i) Securities
7a Gross amount from sales of assets other than inventory 6,215   7a
b Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses 0   7b
c Gain or (loss) 6,215   7c
d Net gain or (loss).........MediumBullet 6,215     6,215
8a Gross income from fundraising events (not including $   of contributions reported on line 1c). See Part IV, line 18 ....
8a  
b Less: direct expenses ... 8b  
c Net income or (loss) from fundraising events..MediumBullet      
9a Gross income from gaming activities.
See Part IV, line 19 ...
9a  
b Less: direct expenses ... 9b  
c Net income or (loss) from gaming activities..MediumBullet        
10a Gross sales of inventory, less
returns and allowances ..
10a  
b Less: cost of goods sold .. 10b  
c Net income or (loss) from sales of inventory..MediumBullet        
Business Code Miscellaneous Revenue
11a OTHER REVENUE 900099 3,482     3,482
b            
c            
d All other revenue ....        
e Total. Add lines 11a–11d ...... MediumBullet 3,482
12 Total revenue. See instructions.....MediumBullet 3,304,423 55,087 0 16,021
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 10
Part IX
Statement of Functional Expenses
Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations must complete all columns. All other organizations must complete column (A).Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part IX..............
Do not include amounts reported on lines 6b,
7b, 8b, 9b, and 10b of Part VIII. 		(A)
Total expenses 		(B)
Program service expenses 		(C)
Management and general expenses 		(D)
Fundraising
expenses
1 Grants and other assistance to domestic organizations and domestic governments. See Part IV, line 21 ....    
2 Grants and other assistance to domestic individuals. See Part IV, line 22 ...........    
3 Grants and other assistance to foreign organizations, foreign governments, and foreign individuals. See Part IV, lines 15 and 16. .............    
4 Benefits paid to or for members .......    
5 Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees ........... 335,772 276,746 43,365 15,661
6 Compensation not included above, to disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)) and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B) .........        
7 Other salaries and wages........ 1,277,970 1,122,772 91,659 63,539
8 Pension plan accruals and contributions (include section 401(k) and 403(b) employer contributions) .... 35,437   35,437  
9 Other employee benefits ....... 64,932   64,932  
10 Payroll taxes ........... 107,484 76,883 23,045 7,556
11 Fees for services (non-employees):        
a Management ......        
b Legal ......... 31,510 2,264 18,258 10,988
c Accounting ........... 53,315 3,831 30,892 18,592
d Lobbying ...........        
e Professional fundraising services. See Part IV, line 17    
f Investment management fees ......        
g Other (If line 11g amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 11g expenses on Schedule O) 112,211 8,064 65,018 39,129
12 Advertising and promotion ....        
13 Office expenses ....... 103,299 49,192 44,297 9,810
14 Information technology ......        
15 Royalties ..        
16 Occupancy ........... 114,625 57,312 57,313  
17 Travel ............ 200,617 123,524 63,069 14,024
18 Payments of travel or entertainment expenses for any federal, state, or local public officials .        
19 Conferences, conventions, and meetings ....        
20 Interest ...........        
21 Payments to affiliates .......        
22 Depreciation, depletion, and amortization .. 47,555 23,777 23,778  
23 Insurance ... 12,452 9,339 3,113  
24 Other expenses. Itemize expenses not covered above (List miscellaneous expenses in line 24e. If line 24e amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 24e expenses on Schedule O.)
a SUBSCRIPTIONS AND MEMBE 123,054 96,686 15,295 11,073
b LITIGATION 52,120 52,120 0 0
c COMMUNICATIONS 36,450 35,793 657 0
d BANK CHARGES 906 0 906 0
e All other expenses        
25 Total functional expenses. Add lines 1 through 24e 2,709,709 1,938,303 581,034 190,372
26 Joint costs. Complete this line only if the organization reported in column (B) joint costs from a combined educational campaign and fundraising solicitation. Check here MediumBullet if following SOP 98-2 (ASC 958-720).        
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 11
Part X
Balance Sheet
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part IX..............
(A)
Beginning of year 		(B)
End of year
Assets 1 Cash–non-interest-bearing ........ 158,362 1 107,756
2 Savings and temporary cash investments ......... 1,794,825 2 2,475,375
3 Pledges and grants receivable, net ...... 0 3 1,310
4 Accounts receivable, net .............   4  
5 Loans and other receivables from any current or former officer, director, trustee, key employee, creator or founder, substantial contributor, or 35% controlled entity or family member of any of these persons .......
  5  
6 Loans and other receivables from other disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)), and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B) ...
  6  
7 Notes and loans receivable, net ...........   7  
8 Inventories for sale or use ............   8  
9 Prepaid expenses and deferred charges ...... 30,696 9 18,852
10a Land, buildings, and equipment: cost or other basis. Complete Part VI of Schedule D 10a 248,787
b Less: accumulated depreciation 10b 125,523 141,491 10c 123,264
11 Investments—publicly traded securities .   11  
12 Investments—other securities. See Part IV, line 11 .....   12  
13 Investments—program-related. See Part IV, line 11 ..   13  
14 Intangible assets ...............   14  
15 Other assets. See Part IV, line 11 ........... 7,188 15 7,188
16 Total assets. Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 33)... 2,132,562 16 2,733,745
Liabilities 17 Accounts payable and accrued expenses ..... 90,684 17 94,586
18 Grants payable ...   18  
19 Deferred revenue .........   19  
20 Tax-exempt bond liabilities .........   20  
21 Escrow or custodial account liability. Complete Part IV of Schedule D   21  
22 Loans and other payables to any current or former officer, director, trustee, key employee, creator or founder, substantial contributor, or 35% controlled entity or family member of any of these persons .........
  22  
23 Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties ..   23  
24 Unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parties ..   24  
25 Other liabilities (including federal income tax, payables to related third parties, and other liabilities not included on lines 17 - 24). Complete Part X of Schedule D 4,814 25 7,381
26 Total liabilities. Add lines 17 through 25.. 95,498 26 101,967
Net Assets or Fund Balance Organizations that follow FASB ASC 958, check here MediumBullet and complete lines 27, 28, 32, and 33.
27 Net assets without donor restrictions .......... 2,037,064 27 2,631,778
28 Net assets with donor restrictions ...........   28  
Organizations that do not follow FASB ASC 958, check here MediumBullet and complete lines 29 through 33.
29 Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds .....   29  
30 Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, building or equipment fund ...   30  
31 Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other funds   31  
32 Total net assets or fund balances ........... 2,037,064 32 2,631,778
33 Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances ........ 2,132,562 33 2,733,745
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Page 12
Part XI
Reconcilliation of Net Assets
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part XI..............
1
Total revenue (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12) ............
1
3,304,423
2
Total expenses (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) ............
2
2,709,709
3
Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 2 from line 1 ..............
3
594,714
4
Net assets or fund balances at beginning of year (must equal Part X, line 32, column (A)) ..
4
2,037,064
5
Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments ...............
5
 
6
Donated services and use of facilities .................
6
 
7
Investment expenses .....................
7
 
8
Prior period adjustments .....................
8
 
9
Other changes in net assets or fund balances (explain in Schedule O) ........
9
0
10
Net assets or fund balances at end of year. Combine lines 3 through 9 (must equal Part X, line 32, column (B))
10
2,631,778
Part XII
Financial Statements and Reporting
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part XII.............
Yes
No
1
Accounting method used to prepare the Form 990:  
If the organization changed its method of accounting from a prior year or checked "Other," explain on
Schedule O.
2a
Were the organization’s financial statements compiled or reviewed by an independent accountant?
2a
 
No
If ‘Yes,’ check a box below to indicate whether the financial statements for the year were compiled or reviewed on a separate basis, consolidated basis, or both:
b
Were the organization’s financial statements audited by an independent accountant?
2b
Yes
 
If ‘Yes,’ check a box below to indicate whether the financial statements for the year were audited on a separate basis, consolidated basis, or both:
c
If "Yes," to line 2a or 2b, does the organization have a committee that assumes responsibility for oversight of the audit, review, or compilation of its financial statements and selection of an independent accountant?
2c
 
No
If the organization changed either its oversight process or selection process during the tax year, explain in Schedule O.
3a
As a result of a federal award, was the organization required to undergo an audit or audits as set forth in the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133?
3a
 
No
b
If "Yes," did the organization undergo the required audit or audits? If the organization did not undergo the required audit or audits, explain why in Schedule O and describe any steps taken to undergo such audits.
3b
 
 
Form 990 (2021)
Form 990 (2021)
Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
Form 990, Special Condition Description:
Special Condition Description
SCHEDULE A
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Public Charity Status and Public Support
Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
right arrow Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
right arrow Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2021
Open to Public
Inspection
Name of the organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
 
Employer identification number

46-4482738
Part I
Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.
The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 12, check only one box.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
a
b
c
d
e
f
Enter the number of supported organizations ...............................  
g
Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).
(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
 
   
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for
Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Cat. No. 11285F
Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021
Page 2
Part II
Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization failed to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)
Section A. Public Support
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) right arrow (a) 2017 (b) 2018 (c) 2019 (d) 2020 (e) 2021 (f) Total
1 Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. 1,566,789 1,825,258 1,802,664 2,801,596 3,233,315 11,229,622
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 1,566,789 1,825,258 1,802,664 2,801,596 3,233,315 11,229,622
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) .. 4,012,433
6 Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. 7,217,189
Section B. Total Support
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) right arrow (a) 2017 (b) 2018 (c) 2019 (d) 2020 (e) 2021 (f) Total
7 Amounts from line 4.. 1,566,789 1,825,258 1,802,664 2,801,596 3,233,315 11,229,622
8 Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources...       840 6,324 7,164
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.)..       2,050 3,482 5,532
11 Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 11,242,318
12
12
152,402
13
First 5 years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here ........................................right arrow
Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage
14
14
64.200 %
15
15
61.380 %
16a
b
17a
b
18
Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions ..................................................... right arrow
Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021
Page 3
Part III
Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 10 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)
Section A. Public Support
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) right arrow (a) 2017 (b) 2018 (c) 2019 (d) 2020 (e) 2021 (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.)  
Section B. Total Support
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) right arrow (a) 2017 (b) 2018 (c) 2019 (d) 2020 (e) 2021 (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 on 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.)..            
14
Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage
15
15
 
16
16
 
Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage
17
17
 
18
18
 
19a
b
20
Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021
Page 4
Part IV
Supporting Organizations
(Complete only if you checked a box on line 12 of Part I. If you checked box 12a, of Part I, complete Sections A and B. If you checked box 12b, of Part I, complete Sections A and C. If you checked box 12c, of Part I, complete Sections A, D, and E. If you checked box12d, of Part I, complete Sections A and D, and complete Part V.)
Section A. All Supporting Organizations
Yes
No
1
Are all of the organization’s supported organizations listed by name in the organization’s governing documents?
If "No," describe in Part VI how the supported organizations are designated. If designated by class or purpose,
describe the designation. If historic and continuing relationship, explain.
1
 
 
2
Did the organization have any supported organization that does not have an IRS determination of status under section 509(a)(1) or (2)? If "Yes," explain in Part VI how the organization determined that the supported organization was described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).
2
 
 
3a
Did the organization have a supported organization described in section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)? If "Yes," answer lines 3b and 3c below.
3a
 
 
b
Did the organization confirm that each supported organization qualified under section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) and satisfied the public support tests under section 509(a)(2)? If "Yes," describe in Part VI when and how the organization made the determination.
3b
 
 
c
Did the organization ensure that all support to such organizations was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes? If "Yes," explain in Part VI what controls the organization put in place to ensure such use.
3c
 
 
4a
Was any supported organization not organized in the United States ("foreign supported organization")? If “Yes” and if you checked box 12a or 12b in Part I, answer lines 4b and 4c below.
4a
 
 
b
Did the organization have ultimate control and discretion in deciding whether to make grants to the foreign supported organization? If “Yes,” describe in Part VI how the organization had such control and discretion despite being controlled or supervised by or in connection with its supported organizations.
4b
 
 
c
Did the organization support any foreign supported organization that does not have an IRS determination under sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2)? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI what controls the organization used to ensure that all support to the foreign supported organization was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes.
4c
 
 
5a
Did the organization add, substitute, or remove any supported organizations during the tax year? If “Yes,” answer lines 5b and 5c below (if applicable). Also, provide detail in Part VI, including (i) the names and EIN numbers of the supported organizations added, substituted, or removed; (ii) the reasons for each such action; (iii) the authority under the organization's organizing document authorizing such action; and (iv) how the action was accomplished (such as by amendment to the organizing document).
5a
 
 
b
Type I or Type II only. Was any added or substituted supported organization part of a class already designated in the organization's organizing document?
5b
 
 
c
Substitutions only. Was the substitution the result of an event beyond the organization's control?
5c
 
 
6
Did the organization provide support (whether in the form of grants or the provision of services or facilities) to anyone other than (i) its supported organizations, (ii) individuals that are part of the charitable class benefited by one or more of its supported organizations, or (iii) other supporting organizations that also support or benefit one or more of the filing organization’s supported organizations? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.
6
 
 
7
Did the organization provide a grant, loan, compensation, or other similar payment to a substantial contributor (defined in section 4958(c)(3)(C)), a family member of a substantial contributor, or a 35% controlled entity with regard to a substantial contributor? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990) .
7
 
 
8
Did the organization make a loan to a disqualified person (as defined in section 4958) not described on line 7? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990).
8
 
 
9a
Was the organization controlled directly or indirectly at any time during the tax year by one or more disqualified persons, as defined in section 4946 (other than foundation managers and organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or (2))? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.
9a
 
 
b
Did one or more disqualified persons (as defined on line 9a) hold a controlling interest in any entity in which the supporting organization had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.
9b
 
 
c
Did a disqualified person (as defined on line 9a) have an ownership interest in, or derive any personal benefit from, assets in which the supporting organization also had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.
9c
 
 
10a
Was the organization subject to the excess business holdings rules of section 4943 because of section 4943(f) (regarding certain Type II supporting organizations, and all Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations)? If “Yes,” answer line 10b below.
10a
 
 
b
Did the organization have any excess business holdings in the tax year? (Use Schedule C, Form 4720, to determine whether the organization had excess business holdings).
10b
 
 
Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021
Page 5
Part IV
Supporting Organizations (continued)
Yes
No
11
Has the organization accepted a gift or contribution from any of the following persons?
a
A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described on lines 11b and 11c below, the governing body of a supported organization?
11a
 
 
b
A family member of a person described on 11a above?
11b
 
 
c
A 35% controlled entity of a person described on line 11a or 11b above? If “Yes” to 11a, 11b, or 11c, provide detail in Part VI.
11c
 
 
Section B. Type I Supporting Organizations
Yes
No
1
Did the officers, directors, trustees, or membership of one or more supported organizations have the power to regularly appoint or elect at least a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees at all times during the tax year? If “No,” describe in Part VI how the supported organization(s) effectively operated, supervised, or controlled the organization’s activities. If the organization had more than one supported organization, describe how the powers to appoint and/or remove directors or trustees were allocated among the supported organizations and what conditions or restrictions, if any, applied to such powers during the tax year.
1
 
 
2
Did the organization operate for the benefit of any supported organization other than the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the supporting organization? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI how providing such benefit carried out the purposes of the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised or controlled the supporting organization.
2
 
 
Section C. Type II Supporting Organizations
Yes
No
1
Were a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees during the tax year also a majority of the directors or trustees of each of the organization’s supported organization(s)? If “No,” describe in Part VI how control or management of the supporting organization was vested in the same persons that controlled or managed the supported organization(s).
1
 
 
Section D. All Type III Supporting Organizations
Yes
No
1
Did the organization provide to each of its supported organizations, by the last day of the fifth month of the organization’s tax year, (i) a written notice describing the type and amount of support provided during the prior tax year, (ii) a copy of the Form 990 that was most recently filed as of the date of notification, and (iii) copies of the organization’s governing documents in effect on the date of notification, to the extent not previously provided?
1
 
 
2
Were any of the organization’s officers, directors, or trustees either (i) appointed or elected by the supported organization(s) or (ii) serving on the governing body of a supported organization? If "No," explain in Part VI how the organization maintained a close and continuous working relationship with the supported organization(s).
2
 
 
3
By reason of the relationship described in line 2 above, did the organization’s supported organizations have a significant voice in the organization’s investment policies and in directing the use of the organization’s income or assets at all times during the tax year? If "Yes," describe in Part VI the role the organization’s supported organizations played in this regard.
3
 
 
Section E. Type III Functionally-Integrated Supporting Organizations
1
Check the box next to the method that the organization used to satisfy the Integral Part Test during the year (see instructions):
a
b
c
2
Activities Test. Answer lines 2a and 2b below.
Yes
No
a
Did substantially all of the organization’s activities during the tax year directly further the exempt purposes of the supported organization(s) to which the organization was responsive? If "Yes," then in Part VI identify those supported organizations and explain how these activities directly furthered their exempt purposes, how the organization was responsive to those supported organizations, and how the organization determined that these activities constituted substantially all of its activities.
2a
 
 
b
Did the activities described on line 2a, above constitute activities that, but for the organization’s involvement, one or more of the organization’s supported organization(s) would have been engaged in? If "Yes," explain in Part VI the reasons for the organization’s position that its supported organization(s) would have engaged in these activities but for the organization’s involvement.
2b
 
 
3
Parent of Supported Organizations. Answer lines 3a and 3b below.
a
Did the organization have the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the officers, directors, or trustees of each of the supported organizations?If "Yes" or "No", provide details in Part VI.
3a
 
 
b
Did the organization exercise a substantial degree of direction over the policies, programs and activities of each of its supported organizations? If "Yes," describe in Part VI. the role played by the organization in this regard.
3b
 
 
Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021
Page 6
Part V
Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations
1
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 0.015 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 0.035 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  
7
Schedule A (Form 990) 2021

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021
Page 7
Part V
Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations(continued)
Section D - Distributions Current Year
1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes 1  
2 Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in
excess of income from activity 		2  
3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations 3  
4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets 4  
5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI) 5  
6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions 6  
7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. 7  
8 Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide
details in Part VI). See instructions 		8  
9 Distributable amount for 2021 from Section C, line 6 9  
10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount 10  
Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) (i)
Excess Distributions 		(ii)
Underdistributions
Pre-2021 		(iii)
Distributable
Amount for 2021
1 Distributable amount for 2021 from Section C, line 6  
2 Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2021 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI).
See instructions.		  
3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2021:
a From 2016.......  
b From 2017.......  
c From 2018.......  
d From 2019.......  
e From 2020.......  
fTotal of lines 3a through e  
g Applied to underdistributions of prior years  
h Applied to 2021 distributable amount  
i Carryover from 2016 not applied (see
instructions) 		 
j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f.  
4Distributions for 2021 from Section D, line 7:
$  
a Applied to underdistributions of prior years  
b Applied to 2021 distributable amount  
c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4.  
5 Remaining underdistributions for years prior to
2021, 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 2021. 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 2022. Add lines
3j and 4c. 		 
8 Breakdown of line 7:
a Excess from 2017.....  
b Excess from 2018.....  
c Excess from 2019.....  
d Excess from 2020.....  
e Excess from 2021.....  
Schedule A (Form 990) (2021)

Schedule A (Form 990) 2021
Page 8
Part VI
Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; Part III, line 12; Part IV, Section A, lines 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5a, 6, 9a, 9b, 9c, 11a, 11b, and 11c; Part IV, Section B, lines 1 and 2; Part IV, Section C, line 1; Part IV, Section D, lines 2 and 3; Part IV, Section E, lines 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b; Part V, line 1; Part V, Section B, line 1e; Part V Section D, lines 5, 6, and 8; and Part V, Section E, lines 2, 5, and 6. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).
Facts And Circumstances Test
 
Return Reference Explanation
SCHEDULE A, PART II, LINE 10, EXPLANATION OF OTHER INCOME: OTHER REVENUE - 2020 AMOUNT: $ 2,050. 2021 AMOUNT: $ 3,482.
Schedule A (Form 990) 2021


Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
Schedule B
(Form 990)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Schedule of Contributors

Arrow Bullet Attach to Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.
Arrow Bullet Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2021
Name of the organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
 
Employer identification number

46-4482738
Organization type (check one):
Filers of:
Section:
Form 990 or 990-EZ






Form 990-PF




Check if your organization is covered by the General Rule or a Special Rule.  
Note: Only a section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organization can check boxes for both the General Rule and a Special Rule. See instructions.
General Rule
Special Rules
......... Arrow Bullet $  
Caution: An organization that isn't covered by the General Rule and/or the Special Rules doesn't file Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF), but it must answer “No” on Part IV, line 2, of its Form 990; or check the box on line H of its Form 990-EZ
or on its Form 990PF, Part I, line 2, to certify that it doesn't meet the filing requirements of Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF).
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions
for Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.
Cat. No. 30613XSchedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021) Page 2
Name of organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
  		Employer identification number
46-4482738
Part I
Contributors
Contributors (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part I if additional space is needed.
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Total contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
RESTRICTED
 
 
 
 
  ,    

$ RESTRICTED


(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Total contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 
 

$  


(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Total contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 
 

$  


(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Total contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 
 

$  


(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Total contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 
 

$  


(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a)
No.		 (b)
Name, address, and ZIP + 4		 (c)
Total contributions		 (d)
Type of contribution
 
 
 
 

$  


(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Page 3
Name of organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
  		Employer identification number

46-4482738
Part II
Noncash Property (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part II if additional space is needed.
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(See instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(See instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(See instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(See instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(See instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b)
Description of noncash property given		 (c)
FMV (or estimate)
(See instructions) 		(d)
Date received
 
$    
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Page 4
Name of organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
  		Employer identification number

46-4482738
Part III
Exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions to organizations described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) that total more than $1,000 for the year from any one contributor. Complete columns (a) through (e) and the following line entry. For organizations completing Part III, enter the total of exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions of $1,000 or less for the year. (Enter this information once. See instructions.) Arrow Bullet$  
Use duplicate copies of Part III if additional space is needed.
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b) Purpose of gift (c) Use of gift (d) Description of how gift is held
 
(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4 Relationship of transferor to transferee
 
 
     
 
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b) Purpose of gift (c) Use of gift (d) Description of how gift is held
 
(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4 Relationship of transferor to transferee
 
 
     
 
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b) Purpose of gift (c) Use of gift (d) Description of how gift is held
 
(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4 Relationship of transferor to transferee
 
 
     
 
(a)
No. from Part I		 (b) Purpose of gift (c) Use of gift (d) Description of how gift is held
 
(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4 Relationship of transferor to transferee
 
 
     
 
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
SCHEDULE D
(Form 990)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Supplemental Financial Statements
SchDMd Bullet Complete if the organization answered "Yes," on Form 990,
Part IV, line 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 12a, or 12b.
SchDMd Bullet Attach to Form 990.
SchDMd Bullet Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2021
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
 
Employer identification number

46-4482738
Part I
Organizations Maintaining Donor Advised Funds or Other Similar Funds or Accounts. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 6.
(a) Donor advised funds (b) Funds and other accounts
1 Total number at end of year .........    
2 Aggregate value of contributions to (during year)    
3 Aggregate value of grants from (during year)    
4 Aggregate value at end of year ........    
5
Did the organization inform all donors and donor advisors in writing that the assets held in donor advised funds are the organization’s property, subject to the organization’s exclusive legal control? ............
6
Did the organization inform all grantees, donors, and donor advisors in writing that grant funds can be used only for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the donor or donor advisor, or for any other purpose conferring impermissible private benefit? ...................................
Part II
Conservation Easements.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 7.
1
Purpose(s) of conservation easements held by the organization (check all that apply).
2
Complete lines 2a through 2d if the organization held a qualified conservation contribution in the form of a conservation easement on the last day of the tax year.
Held at the End of the Year
a Total number of conservation easements ...................... 2a  
b Total acreage restricted by conservation easements .................... 2b  
c Number of conservation easements on a certified historic structure included in (a) ..... 2c  
d Number of conservation easements included in (c) acquired after 7/25/06, and not on a historic structure listed in the National Register ... 2d  
3
Number of conservation easements modified, transferred, released, extinguished, or terminated by the organization during the
tax year SchDMd Bullet  
4
Number of states where property subject to conservation easement is located SchDMd Bullet  
5
Does the organization have a written policy regarding the periodic monitoring, inspection, handling of violations, and enforcement of the conservation easements it holds? ............
6
Staff and volunteer hours devoted to monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet  
7
Amount of expenses incurred in monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet $  
8
Does each conservation easement reported on line 2(d) above satisfy the requirements of section 170(h)(4)(B)(i) and section 170(h)(4)(B)(ii)? .............................
9
In Part XIII, describe how the organization reports conservation easements in its revenue and expense statement, and
balance sheet, and include, if applicable, the text of the footnote to the organization’s financial statements that describes
the organization’s accounting for conservation easements.
Part III
Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 8.
1a
If the organization elected, as permitted under FASB ASC 958, not to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide, in Part XIII, the text of the footnote to its financial statements that describes these items.
b
If the organization elected, as permitted under FASB ASC 958, to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide the following amounts relating to these items:
(i)
Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 .........................SchDMd Bullet $  
(ii)
Assets included in Form 990, Part X ...............................SchDMd Bullet $  
2
If the organization received or held works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets for financial gain, provide the
following amounts required to be reported under FASB ASC 958 relating to these items:
a
Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 ..........................SchDMd Bullet $  
b
Assets included in Form 990, Part X ...............................SchDMd Bullet $  
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.
Cat. No. 52283D
Schedule D (Form 990) 2021

Schedule D (Form 990) 2021
Page 2
Part III
Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets (continued)
3
Using the organization’s acquisition, accession, and other records, check any of the following that are a significant use of its collection items (check all that apply):
a
d
b
e
 
c
4
Provide a description of the organization’s collections and explain how they further the organization’s exempt purpose in
Part XIII.
5
During the year, did the organization solicit or receive donations of art, historical treasures or other similar
assets to be sold to raise funds rather than to be maintained as part of the organization’s collection?...
Part IV
Escrow and Custodial Arrangements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 9, or reported an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21.
1a
Is the organization an agent, trustee, custodian or other intermediary for contributions or other assets not
included on Form 990, Part X? ....................................
b If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII and complete the following table: Amount
c Beginning balance ............................. 1c  
d Additions during the year ............................ 1d  
e Distributions during the year .......................... 1e  
f Ending balance ................................ 1f  
2a
Did the organization include an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21, for escrow or custodial account liability? ...
b
If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII. Check here if the explanation has been provided in Part XIII ....
Part V
Endowment Funds.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 10.
(a) Current year (b) Prior year (c) Two years back (d) Three years back (e) Four years back
1a Beginning of year balance ....          
b Contributions ...          
c Net investment earnings, gains, and losses          
d Grants or scholarships ...          
e Other expenditures for facilities
and programs ... 		         
f Administrative expenses ....          
g End of year balance ......          
2
Provide the estimated percentage of the current year end balance (line 1g, column (a)) held as:
a
Board designated or quasi-endowment SchDMd Bullet  
b
Permanent endowment SchDMd Bullet  
c
Term endowment SchDMd Bullet  
The percentages on lines 2a, 2b, and 2c should equal 100%.
3a
Are there endowment funds not in the possession of the organization that are held and administered for the
organization by:

Yes
No
(i) Unrelated organizations .................
3a(i)
 
 
(ii) Related organizations .................
3a(ii)
 
 
b
If "Yes" on 3a(ii), are the related organizations listed as required on Schedule R? .........
3b
 
 
4
Describe in Part XIII the intended uses of the organization's endowment funds.
Part VI
Land, Buildings, and Equipment.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 11a. See Form 990, Part X, line 10.
Description of property (a) Cost or other basis
(investment) 		(b) Cost or other basis (other) (c) Accumulated depreciation (d) Book value
1a Land .....      
b Buildings ....        
c Leasehold improvements   37,601 15,097 22,504
d Equipment ....   202,720 106,851 95,869
e Other .....   8,466 3,575 4,891
Total. Add lines 1a through 1e. (Column (d) must equal Form 990, Part X, column (B), line 10(c).)..SchDMdBullet 123,264
Schedule D (Form 990) 2021

Schedule D (Form 990) 2021
Page 3
Part VII
Investments - Other Securities.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 11b. See Form 990, Part X, line 12.
(a) Description of security or category
(including name of security)		 (b) Book value (c) Method of valuation:
Cost or end-of-year market value
(1) Financial derivatives.........    
(2) Closely-held equity interests........    
(3)Other
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col. (B) line 12.)Small Bullet  
Part VIII
Investments - Program Related. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11c. See Form 990, Part X, line 13.
(a) Description of investment (b) Book value (c) Method of valuation:
Cost or end-of-year market value
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 13.)Small Bullet  
Part IX
Other Assets.
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11d. See Form 990, Part X, line 15.
(a) Description (b) Book value
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 15.)...........Small Bullet  
Part X
Other Liabilities.
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11e or 11f. See Form 990, Part X, line 25.
1.(a) Description of liability (b) Book value
(1) Federal income taxes  
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 25.)Small Bullet 7,381
2. Liability for uncertain tax positions. In Part XIII, provide the text of the footnote to the organization's financial statements that reports the organization's liability for uncertain tax positions under FIN 48 (ASC 740). Check here if the text of the footnote has been provided in Part XIII
Schedule D (Form 990) 2021

Schedule D (Form 990) 2021
Page 4
Part XI Reconciliation of Revenue per Audited Financial Statements With Revenue per Return. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1 Total revenue, gains, and other support per audited financial statements ....... 1 3,304,423
2 Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12:
a Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments .... 2a  
b Donated services and use of facilities ......... 2b  
c Recoveries of prior year grants ........... 2c  
d Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............ 2d  
e Add lines 2a through 2d ..................... 2e 0
3 Subtract line 2e from line 1.................. 3 3,304,423
4 Amounts included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12, but not on line 1:
a Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b . 4a  
b Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ........... 4b  
c Add lines 4a and 4b.................... 4c 0
5 Total revenue. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 12.) ...... 5 3,304,423
Part XII Reconciliation of Expenses per Audited Financial Statements With Expenses per Return. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1 Total expenses and losses per audited financial statements ........... 1 2,709,709
2 Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part IX, line 25:
a Donated services and use of facilities ......... 2a  
b Prior year adjustments ............ 2b  
c Other losses ................ 2c  
d Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............ 2d  
e Add lines 2a through 2d.................... 2e 0
3 Subtract line 2e from line 1................... 3 2,709,709
4 Amounts included on Form 990, Part IX, line 25, but not on line 1:
a Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b .. 4a  
b Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............ 4b  
c Add lines 4a and 4b..................... 4c 0
5 Total expenses. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 18.) ...... 5 2,709,709
Part XIII
Supplemental Information
Provide the descriptions required for Part II, lines 3, 5, and 9; Part III, lines 1a and 4; Part lV, lines 1b and 2b; Part V, line 4; Part X, line 2; Part XI, lines 2d and 4b; and Part XII, lines 2d and 4b. Also complete this part to provide any additional information.
Return Reference Explanation
PART X, LINE 2: THE ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) AS A TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (THE CODE) AND IS EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ON RELATED INCOME PURSUANT TO SECTION 501(A) OF THE CODE. THE ORGANIZATION ADHERES TO THE PROVISIONS OF ASC 740, INCOME TAXES (ASC 740). ASC 740 ESTABLISHES RULES FOR RECOGNIZING AND MEASURING TAX POSITIONS TAKEN IN AN INCOME TAX RETURN, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES OF UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS (UTPS). ASC 740 MANDATES THAT COMPANIES EVALUATE ALL MATERIAL INCOME TAX POSITIONS FOR PERIODS THAT REMAIN OPEN UNDER APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATION, AS WELL AS POSITIONS EXPECTED TO BE TAKEN IN FUTURE RETURNS. THE UTP RULES THEN IMPOSE A RECOGNITION THRESHOLD ON EACH TAX POSITION. AN ORGANIZATION CAN RECOGNIZE AN INCOME TAX BENEFIT ONLY IF THE POSITION HAS A "MORE LIKELY THAN NOT" (I.E., MORE THAN 50 PERCENT) CHANCE OF BEING SUSTAINED ON THE TECHNICAL MERITS. FOR THE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 AND 2021, THE ORGANIZATION HAS TAKEN NO MATERIAL TAX POSITIONS ON ITS APPLICABLE TAX FILINGS THAT DO NOT MEET THE "MORE LIKELY THAN NOT" THRESHOLD. AS A RESULT, NO AMOUNT FOR UTPS HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. MANAGEMENT BELIEVES IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX EXAMINATIONS FOR YEARS PRIOR TO 2019.
Schedule D (Form 990) 2021


Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  




Schedule J
(Form 990)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Compensation Information
For certain Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest
Compensated Employees
SchJMediumBullet Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 23.
SchJMediumBullet Attach to Form 990.
SchJMediumBullet Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2021
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
 
Employer identification number

46-4482738
Part I
Questions Regarding Compensation
Yes
No
1a
Check the appropiate box(es) if the organization provided any of the following to or for a person listed on Form
990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a. Complete Part III to provide any relevant information regarding these items.
b
If any of the boxes on Line 1a are checked, did the organization follow a written policy regarding payment or reimbursement or provision of all of the expenses described above? If "No," complete Part III to explain .....
1b
 
 
2
Did the organization require substantiation prior to reimbursing or allowing expenses incurred by all
directors, trustees, officers, including the CEO/Executive Director, regarding the items checked on Line 1a? ....
2
 
 
3
Indicate which, if any, of the following the filing organization used to establish the compensation of the
organization's CEO/Executive Director. Check all that apply. Do not check any boxes for methods
used by a related organization to establish compensation of the CEO/Executive Director, but explain in Part III.
4
During the year, did any person listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, with respect to the filing organization or a related organization:
a
Receive a severance payment or change-of-control payment? .............
4a
 
No
b
Participate in, or receive payment from, a supplemental nonqualified retirement plan? .........
4b
 
No
c
Participate in, or receive payment from, an equity-based compensation arrangement? .........
4c
 
No
If "Yes" to any of lines 4a-c, list the persons and provide the applicable amounts for each item in Part III.
Only 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(29) organizations must complete lines 5-9.
5
For persons listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the revenues of:
a
The organization? ....................
5a
 
No
b
Any related organization? .......................
5b
 
No
If "Yes," on line 5a or 5b, describe in Part III.
6
For persons listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the net earnings of:
a
The organization? ..................
6a
 
No
b
Any related organization? ......................
6b
 
No
If "Yes," on line 6a or 6b, describe in Part III.
7
For persons listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization provide any nonfixed
payments not described in lines 5 and 6? If "Yes," describe in Part III ............
7
 
No
8
Were any amounts reported on Form 990, Part VII, paid or accured pursuant to a contract that was
subject to the initial contract exception described in Regulations section 53.4958-4(a)(3)? If "Yes," describe
in Part III ..........................
8
 
No
9
If "Yes" on line 8, did the organization also follow the rebuttable presumption procedure described in Regulations section 53.4958-6(c)? .........................
9
 
 
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.
Cat. No. 50053T
Schedule J (Form 990) 2021

Schedule J (Form 990) 2021
Page 2
Part II
Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees. Use duplicate copies if additional space is needed.
For each individual whose compensation must be reported on Schedule J, report compensation from the organization on row (i) and from related organizations, described in the
instructions, on row (ii). Do not list any individuals that are not listed on Form 990, Part VII.
Note. The sum of columns (B)(i)-(iii) for each listed individual must equal the total amount of Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, applicable column (D) and (E) amounts for that individual.
(A) Name and Title (B) Breakdown of W-2, 1099-MISC compensation, and/or 1099-NEC (C) Retirement and other deferred compensation (D) Nontaxable
benefits		 (E) Total of columns
(B)(i)-(D) 		(F) Compensation in column (B) reported as deferred on prior Form 990
(i) Base
compensation 		(ii) Bonus & incentive
compensation 		(iii) Other reportable compensation
1NATHAN J MCGRATH
PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL 		(i)

(ii)		 277,238
-------------
0 		0
-------------
0 		0
-------------
0 		8,317
-------------
0 		12,167
-------------
0 		297,722
-------------
0 		0
-------------
0
2MATTHEW L GARBER
VICE PRESIDENT & CORPORATE COUNSEL 		(i)

(ii)		 156,643
-------------
0 		0
-------------
0 		0
-------------
0 		4,249
-------------
0 		17,154
-------------
0 		178,046
-------------
0 		0
-------------
0
Schedule J (Form 990) 2021

Schedule J (Form 990) 2021
Page 3
Part III
Supplemental Information
Provide the information, explanation, or descriptions required for Part I, lines 1a, 1b, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7, and 8, and for Part II. Also complete this part for any additional information.
Return Reference Explanation
Schedule J (Form 990) 2021

Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
SCHEDULE M
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Noncash Contributions
Right pointing arrow large imageComplete if the organizations answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, lines 29 or 30.
Right pointing arrow large image Attach to Form 990.
Right pointing arrow large imageGo to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2021
Open to Public Inspection
Name of the organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
 
Employer identification number

46-4482738
Part I
Types of Property
(a)
Check if applicable 		(b)
Number of contributions or items contributed 		(c)
Noncash contribution amounts reported on
Form 990, Part VIII, line 1g 		(d)
Method of determining
noncash contribution amounts
1 Art—Works of art ....        
2 Art—Historical treasures .        
3 Art—Fractional interests ..        
4 Books and publications ..      
5 Clothing and household
goods ....... 		     
6 Cars and other vehicles ..        
7 Boats and planes ....        
8 Intellectual property ...        
9 Securities—Publicly traded . X 1 306,602 MARKET VALUE
10 Securities—Closely held stock .        
11 Securities—Partnership, LLC,
or trust interests .... 		       
12 Securities—Miscellaneous ..        
13 Qualified conservation
contribution—Historic
structures ..... 		       
14 Qualified conservation
contribution—Other ... 		       
15 Real estate—Residential .        
16 Real estate—Commercial ..        
17 Real estate—Other ...        
18 Collectibles .....        
19 Food inventory ...        
20 Drugs and medical supplies .        
21 Taxidermy ......        
22 Historical artifacts ....        
23 Scientific specimens ..        
24 Archeological artifacts ...        
25 Other Right pointing arrow large image ( )
26 Other Right pointing arrow large image ( )
27 Other Right pointing arrow large image ( )
28 Other Right pointing arrow large image ( )
29
Number of Forms 8283 received by the organization during the tax year for contributions
for which the organization completed Form 8283, Part IV, Donee Acknowledgement
29
 
Yes
No
30a
During the year, did the organization receive by contribution any property reported in Part I, lines 1 through 28, that it must hold for at least three years from the date of the initial contribution, and which isn't required to be used for exempt purposes for the entire holding period? ...................
30a
 
No
b
If "Yes," describe the arrangement in Part II.
31
Does the organization have a gift acceptance policy that requires the review of any nonstandard contributions?
31
 
No
32a
Does the organization hire or use third parties or related organizations to solicit, process, or sell noncash
contributions? ..........................
32a
 
No
b
If "Yes," describe in Part II.
33
If the organization didn't report an amount in column (c) for a type of property for which column (a) is checked,
describe in Part II.
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.
Cat. No. 51227J
Schedule M (Form 990) (2021)
Schedule M (Form 990) (2021)
Page 2
Part IISupplemental Information. Provide the information required by Part I, lines 30b, 32b, and 33, and whether the organization is reporting in Part I, column (b), the number of contributions, the number of items received, or a combination of both. Also complete this part for any additional information.
Return Reference Explanation
PART I, COLUMN (B): THE NUMBER REPORTED IN PART 1, LINE 9(B) IS THE NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTIONS.
Schedule M (Form 990) (2021)

Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version:  
SCHEDULE O
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or 990-EZ or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
OMB No. 1545-0047
2021
Open to Public
Inspection
Name of the organization
THE FAIRNESS CENTER INC
 
Employer identification number

46-4482738
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. 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. 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 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. 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 PROVIDED 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 WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SOUGHT 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 DID NOT SUPPORT. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SOUGHT 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 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. LINDA MISJA V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED 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 DID 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 RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. 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 SOUGHT 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. 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 RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED 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. MIRIAM FULTZ; DARLEEN DALTO; LUCINDA RADAKER; LACEY BAINBRIDGE; CAROL SHANER; JASON KOHUTE; KURTIS COATES; LISA SOUTHERS; BRITTANY ZAPPASODI; SCOTT CARTER; DEBRA KERSTETTER; ASHLEY CLUCK; BLAINE CHAPMAN; AND BARBARA RICHTER V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13; 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 CAPACITIES AS CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO RESIGNED FROM THEIR PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION AND SOUGHT 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 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 WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS ARE 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. PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT 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. SANDRA SMITH V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668; MICHAEL NEWSOME, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION; AND 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. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER. BRADLEY BARLOW V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668; MICHAEL NEWSOME, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION; AND 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 PROVIDES 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 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 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 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 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.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED FRANCES BIDDISCOMBE V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668; MICHAEL NEWSOME, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION; AND 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 PROVIDES 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 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 FOR THE PLAINTIFF ARE 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 PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. HOWEVER, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING. HECTOR REYES V. LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION; KENNETH WYNDER, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION; BILL DE BLASIO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY; NEIL MATTHEW, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK CITY FINANCIAL INFORMATION SERVICE AGENCY, OFFICE OF PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION; RENEE CAMPION, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF LABOR RELATIONS; FRANK J. MILAZZO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS POLICE CHIEF FOR THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICE. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK 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 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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. EDWARD MENDEZ AND HORTENCIA GARCIA V. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; LOCAL 983, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; CITY OF NEW YORK. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO TWO NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SOUGHT TO RESIGN FROM THEIR PUBLIC-SECTOR UNIONS, TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNIONS THEY EACH NO LONGER SUPPORTED, AND TO CHALLENGE THE UNION'S AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW TO ACT AS THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE. 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, TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT, AND TO CHALLENGE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION UNDER NEW YORK LAW. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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 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. PENNY GUSTAFSON V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, DISTRICT COUNCIL 83; AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2047.THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO HER UNION'S FAILURE TO FAIRLY REPRESENT HER DURING A WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION AND SUBSEQUENT GRIEVANCE PROCEEDING. 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 FAIR REPRESENTATION. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING THAT WOULD FURTHER DEFINE 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 NOMINAL DAMAGES AND MINIMAL BACKPAY. 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 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 RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW. HOWEVER, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED AMBER WELCH V. CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000 AFSCME/AFL-CIO, CITY OF SYRACUSE UNIT 7801-00 OF LOCAL 834; CITY OF SYRACUSE. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO RESIGN FROM HER PUBLIC-SECTOR UNION, TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNION SHE NO LONGER SUPPORTED, AND TO CHALLENGE THE UNION'S AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW TO ACT AS HER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE. 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, TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT, AND TO CHALLENGE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION UNDER NEW YORK LAW. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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. CHRIS TAYLOR V. PENNSYLVANIA STATE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO HIS UNION'S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE FAIR REPRESENTATION TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT. 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 FAIR REPRESENTATION. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING THAT WOULD FURTHER DEFINE 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 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. 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 RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW. HOWEVER, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING. GERALDINE MCGRAW V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, HEALTHCARE PA, CTW, CLC. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO MISREPRESENTATIONS BY UNION OFFICIALS AND 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 SOUGHT TO EXPAND OR CLARIFY THE RIGHTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS TO FAIR REPRESENTATION AND TO DETERMINE ENFORCEABILITY OF PURPORTED CONTRACTS THAT LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION. 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 NOMINAL DAMAGES AND 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 PURSUANT TO STATE LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER. ALAN WISNEWSKI V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, HEALTHCARE PA, CTW, CLC. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO THE UNION'S BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF ITS DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION. 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 FAIR REPRESENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL 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 NOMINAL DAMAGES AND RECOVERY OF UNION DUES WRONGFULLY PAID. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE FOR THE PLAINTIFF ARE 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 PURSUANT TO STATE LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED RAYMOND MICHIELINI V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 589, LI, NY; LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD COMPANY.THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO DEFENDANTS' CONCERTED CONDUCT IN DEDUCTING UNION DUES FROM HIS WAGES AFTER HIS UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION, IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE OR HONOR HIS UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION, AND BY RETALIATING AGAINST HIM BY UNLAWFULLY ALTERING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. 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 WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECTED TO RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM BACK PAY, NOMINAL DAMAGES, AND RECOVERY OF UNION DUES WRONGFULLY PAID. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE FOR THE PLAINTIFF ARE 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 PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WERE OBTAINED IN THIS MATTER. LYNNE GARCIA V. NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS; BOCES EDUCATORS OF EASTERN SUFFOLK, AFT LOCAL 3037, NYSUT LOCAL 22-220; BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES OF THE FIRST SUPERVISORY DISTRICT OF SUFFOLK COUNTY.THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNIONS SHE NO LONGER SUPPORTED AS WELL AS A REFUND OF UNION DUES DEDUCTED FROM HER WAGES AFTER HER UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION. 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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. ROBIN WHEATLEY V. NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS; NEW HARTFORD EMPLOYEES UNION; NEW HARTFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNIONS SHE NO LONGER SUPPORTED, AS WELL AS A REFUND OF UNION DUES UNLAWFULLY DEDUCTED FROM HER WAGES AFTER HER UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION. 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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 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. ALLEN KNABB V. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 1776 KEYSTONE STATE; WENDELL W. YOUNG, IV, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, PA WINE AND SPIRITS COUNCIL; 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 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 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. 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 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 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.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED EDWARD SEABRON AND BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF NEW YORK CITY AND LOCAL 983, AFSCME. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT AND THREATENING SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS BY A UNION OFFICIAL BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S DECISION TO NOT SUPPORT THE UNION. 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 NOT TO SUPPORT 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 FROM PERMITTING AN OFFICIAL TO HARASS A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE FOR EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. 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. CRYSTAL PAPARONE-DONADIO V. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, ET AL.; AND EDWARD SEABRON V. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; LOCAL 983, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; CITY OF NEW YORK; AND MOELEEK THOMAS V. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; LOCAL 983, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; CITY OF NEW YORK. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO THREE NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SOUGHT TO RESIGN FROM THEIR PUBLIC-SECTOR UNIONS AND TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNIONS THEY EACH 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 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINTS, 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 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 COMPLAINTS 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 THESE MATTERS. JOHN ABEEL V. THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION, AFL-CIO; THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER; MICHAEL N. VOLFORTE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK 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 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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. JOE MANDRUSIAK AND THE FREEDOM FOUNDATION V. YORK COUNTY (OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS).THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A NON-PROFIT THAT SOUGHT DOCUMENTS FROM YORK COUNTY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA'S RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW BUT YORK COUNTY REFUSED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN TRANSPARENCY SURROUNDING USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LABOR UNION OFFICIALS. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING THAT WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC EMPLOYERS TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION RELATED TO BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTATION BY UNION OFFICIALS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE FILINGS, THE LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. 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. 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. NO ATTORNEYS' FEES HAVE BEEN SOUGHT IN THIS MATTER. WARREN P. SAVAGE V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13 AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, DISTRICT COUNCIL 84.THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO MISREPRESENTATIONS BY UNION OFFICIALS AND 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 IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SOUGHT TO EXPAND OR CLARIFY THE RIGHTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS AND TO DETERMINE ENFORCEABILITY OF PURPORTED CONTRACTS THAT LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE PLAINTIFF 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 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 PURSUANT TO STATE LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED GREGORY TOWSE V. CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK 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 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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. GREGORY DALESSANDRO V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 89, LI, NY; LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD COMPANY. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO DEFENDANTS' CONCERTED CONDUCT IN DEDUCTING UNION DUES FROM HIS WAGES AFTER HIS UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION AND IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE OR HONOR HIS UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION. 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 WHO SEEK TO RESIGN THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND/OR SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND RECOVERY OF UNION DUES WRONGFULLY COLLECTED. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT WARRANT REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL AMOUNTS AT STAKE FOR THE PLAINTIFF ARE 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 PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS WERE OBTAINED IN THIS MATTER. MICHELLE JONES V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668.THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGED HER RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO MISREPRESENTATIONS BY UNION OFFICIALS AND 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 SOUGHT TO EXPAND OR CLARIFY THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES REGARDING PURPORTED CONTRACTS THAT LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE PLAINTIFF 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 RECOVERY OF UNION DUES WRONGFULLY COLLECTED. THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT HAVE WARRANTED REPRESENTATION FROM PRIVATE SOURCES BECAUSE 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 STATE LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER. SOME COSTS WERE OBTAINED IN THIS MATTER. AVRAHAM GOLDSTEIN; MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN; FRIMETTE KASS-SHRAIBMAN; MITCHELL LANGBERT; JEFFREY LAX; MARIA PAGANO V. PROFESSIONAL STAFF CONGRESS/CUNY; CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK; JOHN WIRENIUS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD; ROSEMARY A. TOWNLEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD; ANTHONY ZUMBOLO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD; CITY OF NEW YORK; THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNION THEY NO LONGER SUPPORT, AND TO CHALLENGE THE UNION'S AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW TO ACT AS THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE. 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, TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO END FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A UNION TO AVOID HAVING THEIR MONEY USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAUSES THEY DO NOT SUPPORT, AND TO CHALLENGE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION UNDER NEW YORK LAW. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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 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. PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIVE COMPLAINT 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 PENDING OR NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED DAPHNE SMITH V. COUNCIL 82, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; ALBANY COUNTY SHERIFF'S LOCAL 775 OF SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES; COUNCIL 82, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; AND THE COUNTY OF ALBANY. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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 STATE LAW. HOWEVER, NO ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS MATTER. TINA CURTIS V. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS UNION LOCAL 217, AFL-CIO; THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN; NEW HAVEN BOARD OF EDUCATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDED LEGAL SERVICES TO A CONNECTICUT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO RESIGN FROM HER 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN CONNECTICUT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. 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. AMERICANS FOR FAIR TREATMENT V. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, LOUIS DEJOY, AND THOMAS J. MARSHALL. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A NON-PROFIT THAT SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE USPS'S REFUSAL UNDER FOIA TO DISCLOSE OR IDENTIFY CERTAIN DOCUMENTS THAT RELATED TO UNION OFFICIAL ACTIVITY. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN TRANSPARENCY SURROUNDING USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC UNION OFFICIALS. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING THAT WOULD REQUIRE USPS TO DISCLOSE THE INVOLVEMENT OF UNION OFFICIALS WITH THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF MANY AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. 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. 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, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING. LORETTA POYNEER V. NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS, SYRACUSE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNIONS SHE NO LONGER SUPPORTS, AS WELL AS A REFUND OF UNION DUES UNLAWFULLY DEDUCTED FROM HER WAGES AFTER HER UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION. 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 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 NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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 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. MARCUS THORNTON AND AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION; AND MARCUS THORNTON AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE UNION OFFICIALS FAILED TO NEGOTIATE WITH HIS PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER A TERM AND CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, THE AGENCY'S VACCINE MANDATE, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO ENFORCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO HAVE THEIR PUBLIC UNION OFFICIALS ENGAGE IN ARMS-LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYEES' PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO WORKING CONDITIONS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE CHARGES, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. 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. 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 CHARGES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE FLRA 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.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED JEAN MEEKER AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES; AND JEAN MEEKER AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1653; AND JEAN MEEKER AND FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE UNION OFFICIALS FAILED TO NEGOTIATE WITH HER PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER A TERM AND CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, THE AGENCY'S VACCINE MANDATE, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO ENFORCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO HAVE THEIR PUBLIC UNION OFFICIALS ENGAGE IN ARMS-LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYEES' PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO WORKING CONDITIONS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE CHARGES, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. 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. 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 CHARGES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE FLRA 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. CURTIS DUVALL AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; AND CURTIS DUVALL AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1942; AND CURTIS DUVALL AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE UNION OFFICIALS FAILED TO NEGOTIATE WITH HIS PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER A TERM AND CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, THE AGENCY'S VACCINE MANDATE, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO ENFORCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO HAVE THEIR PUBLIC UNION OFFICIALS ENGAGE IN ARMS-LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYEES' PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO WORKING CONDITIONS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE CHARGES, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. 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. 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 CHARGES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE FLRA 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. JONATHAN GRAGG AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; AND JONATHAN GRAGG AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, DISTRICT 1; AND JONATHAN GRAGG AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE UNION OFFICIALS FAILED TO NEGOTIATE WITH HIS PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER A TERM AND CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, THE AGENCY'S VACCINE MANDATE, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO ENFORCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO HAVE THEIR PUBLIC UNION OFFICIALS ENGAGE IN ARMS-LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYEES' PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO WORKING CONDITIONS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE CHARGES, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. 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. 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 CHARGES ALLOW THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE FLRA 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. BRIAN LOMBARDI AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION; AND BRIAN LOMBARDI AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 111; AND BRIAN LOMBARDI AND U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE UNION OFFICIALS FAILED TO NEGOTIATE WITH HIS PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER A TERM AND CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, THE AGENCY'S VACCINE MANDATE, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO ENFORCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO HAVE THEIR PUBLIC UNION OFFICIALS ENGAGE IN ARMS-LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYEES' PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO WORKING CONDITIONS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE CHARGES, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. 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. 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 CHARGES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE FLRA 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. SHAWN HAYES AND NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL; AND SHAWN HAYES AND U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE UNION OFFICIALS FAILED TO NEGOTIATE WITH HIS PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER A TERM AND CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, THE AGENCY'S VACCINE MANDATE, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO ENFORCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO HAVE THEIR PUBLIC UNION OFFICIALS ENGAGE IN ARMS-LENGTH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYEES' PUBLIC EMPLOYER OVER ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO WORKING CONDITIONS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE CHARGES, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM THE LITIGATION. 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. 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 CHARGES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE FLRA 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. ANDREW TOWER AND U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; AND ANDREW TOWER AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION; AND ANDREW TOWER AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION-CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE PUBLIC UNION OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYER FAILED TO ALLOW HIM TO RESIGN FROM AND STOP PAYING UNION DUES AFTER HE NO LONGER WANTED TO SUPPORT THE UNION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO ENFORCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO RESIGN FROM AND STOP FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING A UNION AT ANY TIME. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE CHARGES, 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 CHARGES RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE FLRA 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.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED SAGE COLLINS AND IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; AND SAGE COLLINS AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. THE FAIRNESS CENTER IS PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHOSE UNION ABANDONED ITS STATUS AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS BARGAINING UNIT YET NEVERTHELESS THE PUBLIC EMPLOYER STILL TOOK DUES FROM EMPLOYEES' PAYCHECKS FOR THAT UNION'S BENEFIT. THE FAIRNESS CENTER'S ROLE IN THIS CASE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF A BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT THE CASE SEEKS TO ENFORCE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO STOP PAYING A UNION THAT NO LONGER REPRESENTS THEM AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE CHARGES, 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 CHARGES ALLOW THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE FLRA 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. MINDY MCFETRIDGE V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO AFSCME'S FAILURE TO FAIRLY REPRESENT HER AND AFSCME'S AND DOT'S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO SENIORITY PROVISIONS WITHIN THE APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. 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 FAIR REPRESENTATION. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING THAT WOULD FURTHER DEFINE A UNION'S DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION TO BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE PETITION, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION, ASIDE FROM NOMINAL DAMAGES AND MINIMAL BACKPAY. 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 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 PETITION RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT THE COURT AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW. HOWEVER, A REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS NOT YET RIPE AS THIS MATTER IS STILL ONGOING. GLEN WILKOFSKY V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, LOCAL 45, AND ALLENTOWN SYMPHONY ASSOCIATION INC. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO RESIGNED FROM HIS UNION AND SOUGHT 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. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING INTERPRETING PENNSYLVANIA LAW. 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 LOST WAGES. 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 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 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. JENNIFER KUMPF V. NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS, BUFFALO TEACHERS FEDERATION, AND BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A FORMER NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNIONS SHE NO LONGER SUPPORTED, AS WELL AS A REFUND OF UNION DUES UNLAWFULLY DEDUCTED FROM HER WAGES AFTER HER UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION. 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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 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. JATANIA MOTA V. NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS, UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 2, AND NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A FORMER NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNIONS SHE NO LONGER SUPPORTED, AS WELL AS A REFUND OF UNION DUES UNLAWFULLY DEDUCTED FROM HER WAGES AFTER HER UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION. 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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 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.
PART III, LINE 4A CONTINUED MARCO TORRES V. NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS, UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 2, AND NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO SOUGHT TO CEASE PAYING UNION DUES TO THE UNIONS HE NO LONGER SUPPORTED, AS WELL AS A REFUND OF UNION DUES UNLAWFULLY DEDUCTED FROM HIS WAGES AFTER HIS UNION MEMBERSHIP RESIGNATION. 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 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 SOUGHT A RULING WIDELY APPLICABLE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE VIA CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK'S PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT STATUTE. 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 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. MAGDALENA DEJESUS V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668 AND STEPHEN CATANESE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 668.THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES 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 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 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 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. MELISSA SPECHT V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 668 AND STEPHEN CATANESE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 668.THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES 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 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 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 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. IN THE MATTER OF THE HARTFORD FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL NO. 1018, AFT, AFL-CIO; THE HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND JOHN GRANDE. THE FAIRNESS CENTER PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES TO A CONNECTICUT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED DUE TO HFT'S FAILURE TO FAIRLY REPRESENT HIM BECAUSE OF HIS STATUS AS A UNION NONMEMBER. 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 DISCRIMINATION. THE LITIGATION WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT BEYOND THE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT IN THAT IT SEEKS A RULING WHICH PROHIBITS THE UNION AND EMPLOYER FROM PERMITTING THE DISCRIMINATION OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT NOT TO BE A UNION MEMBER. BASED ON THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT, THE LITIGANT REPRESENTED BY THE FAIRNESS CENTER WOULD RECEIVE LITTLE FINANCIAL BENEFIT, IF ANY, FROM THE LITIGATION BECAUSE THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS PRIMARILY EQUITABLE IN NATURE. 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. 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 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.
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.
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Cat. No. 51056K
Schedule O (Form 990) 2021


Additional Data


Software ID:  
Software Version: