Fairness Center Inc.

“The form 990 is reviewed by the organization's board of trustees prior to signature and filing.”

“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.”

“The organization's independent trustees reviewed comparable data in setting the president's compensation and evaluating his performance.”

“The organization provides the governing documents and conflict of interest policy upon request.”

“Legal services description of cases litigated and the rationale for the determination that the litigation benefits the public generally: i. Case name: jane ladley and christopher meier v. Pennsylvania state education association ("psea"). The fairness center provides legal services to schoolteachers jane ladley and chris meier, religious objectors denied their right to fund charities of their choice. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon union nonmembers' constitutional rights and to provide protection to union nonmember employees from having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks a ruling applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the union's policy operates. The litigant received no financial benefit from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized. The litigation would not warrant representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake are relatively small for individual plaintiffs. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services but has requested that the court award reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to federal law. Ii. Case name: trometter v. National education association ("nea") & psea the fairness center provided legal services to mary trometter, an assistant professor of culinary arts at the pennsylvania college of technology. The fairness center represented mary trometter in her challenge to the psea's and nea's use of dues money to support a candidate for public office. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest because it supports enforcement of existing laws and protection of public-sector employees in pennsylvania from having their union dues used to support candidates for office in violation of state law. Therefore, the litigation would also have a substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks to defend and uphold the political system established in pennsylvania. A favorable result would serve as an example for other states where similar state laws are being violated. The litigant received no financial benefit from the litigation. The litigation was not one that would warrant representation from private sources because it would not have been financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact was significant, the financial amounts at stake were relatively small for individual plaintiffs. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Iii. Case name: linda misja v. Psea the fairness center provides legal services to schoolteacher linda misja, a religious objector denied her right to fund a charity of her choice. The fairness center's role in the case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon union nonmembers' constitutional rights and to provide protection to union nonmember employees from having their money used in connection with causes they did not support. Additionally, the litigation would have had a substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigant in that it seeks a ruling applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the union's policy operates. The litigant represented by the fairness center will receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized from her. The litigation would not have warranted representation from private sources because it would not have been financially beneficial to a priv”

“Generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Vii. Case name: james r. Williams v. Psea the fairness center provides legal services to schoolteacher james r. Williams, a religious objector denied his right to fund a charity of his choice. The fairness center's role in the case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon union nonmembers' constitutional rights and to provide protection to union nonmember employees from having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. Additionally, the litigation would have had a substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigant in that it seeks a ruling applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the union's policy operates. The litigant represented by the fairness center will receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized from them. The litigation would not have warranted representation from private sources because it would not have been financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services but has requested that the court award reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to federal law. Viii. Case name: americans for fair treatment v. Reading education association and reading school district the fairness center provided legal services to legal service organization americans for fair treatment in its challenge to reading's longstanding practice of taking school teachers out of public schools to perform full-time work for the reading education association. The fairness center's role in the case was representative of a broad public interest in that the case sought to ensure lawful and proper use of public resources and to strengthen the reading school system. Additionally, the litigation would have had a substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigant in that it sought a ruling applicable across pennsylvania, where similar arrangements abounded. The litigant represented by the fairness center received no financial benefit from the litigation as any financial benefit would have been conferred on the reading school district. The litigation would not have warranted representation from private sources because it would not have been financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center did not accept fees for services. Ix. Case name: gregory j. Hartnett, elizabeth m. Galaska, robert g. Brough, jr., and john m. Cress v. Psea, homer-center education association, twin valley education association, ellwood area education association, homer-center school district, twin valley school district, ellwood city area school district, charles koren, in his official capacity as the superintendent of the homer-center school district, robert pleis, in his official capacity as the superintendent of the twin valley school district, and joe mancini, in his official capacity as the superintendent of the ellwood city area school district the fairness center provides legal services to four teachers across pennsylvania in their challenge to united states supreme court precedent permitting extracting of agency fees in violation of the first amendment, as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment. The fairness center's role in the case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon union nonmembers' constitutional rights and to provide protection to union nonmember employees from having their mon”