Fairness Center Inc.

“The form 990 is reviewed (approved) by the president and general counsel prior to filing and is provided to the board for input.”

“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, conflict of interest policy, and financial statements upon request.”

“The fairness center determines which cases to accept based on the issues involved, the impact for the litigant, and the public interest, and not based on any expectation of financial award or benefit for the fairness center. Gregory j. Hartnett, elizabeth m. Galaska, robert g. Brough, jr., and john m. Cress v. Pennsylvania state education association, homer-center education association, twin valley education association, ellwood area education association, homer-center school district, twin valley school district, ellwood city area school district, charles koren, in his official capacity as the superintendent of the homer-center school district, robert pleis, in his official capacity as the superintendent of the twin valley school district, and joe mancini, in his official capacity as the superintendent of the ellwood city area school district. The fairness center provided free legal services to four pennsylvania public-school teachers located across pennsylvania in their challenge to united states supreme court precedent permitting extracting of agency fees in violation of the first amendment, as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment. The fairness center's role in the case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case sought to clarify or expand upon union nonmembers' constitutional rights and to provide protection to union nonmember public employees from having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. Additionally, the litigation would have a substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it sought a ruling applicable across the country, where similar arrangements abound. Based on the operative complaint, the litigants represented by the fairness center would receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized from them. The litigation would not have warranted representation from private sources because it would not have been financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake were relatively small for individual plaintiffs. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Plaintiffs' operative complaint reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. However, no attorneys' fees were sought by plaintiffs in this matter. In re erik gagne and barry wallett. The fairness center provides legal services to connecticut public employees who have been subjected to harassment and disparaging messages posted on union bulletin boards at their place of public employment by certain union members because of the public employee plaintiffs' decision to not be union members. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to protect public employees who exercise their right to not join a union from illegal harassment and discrimination. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks a ruling which prohibits the union and employer from permitting the harassment of a public employee for exercising their right not to be a union member and an order that the union and employer must notify employees of their right to not be a member of a public-sector union. Based on the operative complaint, the litigants represented by the fairness center would receive no financial benefit from the litigation. The relief sought is an order to remove offending messages, prevent the posting of future messages, and require the union and employer to inform employees of their right to not be a member of a public-sector union. The litigation would not warrant representation from private sources because it woul”

“Plaintiffs' operative complaint reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. However, no attorneys' fees were sought by plaintiffs in this matter. Jane ladley and christopher meier v. Pennsylvania state education association ("psea"). The fairness center provides legal services to plaintiff schoolteachers who were religious objectors denied their right to fund charities of their choice. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon union nonmembers' constitutional rights and to protect two union nonmember employees from having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks a ruling applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the union's policy operates. Based on the complaint, the litigants represented by the fairness center will receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized. The litigation would not warrant representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake are relatively small for individual plaintiffs. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Plaintiffs' operative complaint has reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. However, a request for attorneys' fees is not yet ripe as this matter is still ongoing. John r. Kabler, jr. V. United food and commercial workers union, local 1776 keystone state; wendell w. Young, iv, in his individual and official capacities; michele l. Kessler, in her individual and official capacities; peg rhodes, in her individual and official capacities; united food and commercial workers union, pennsylvania wine and spirits council; commonwealth of pennsylvania, pennsylvania liquor control board; thomas w. Wolf, in his official capacity as governor of pennsylvania; timothy holden, in his official capacity as chairman of the pennsylvania liquor control board; michael newsome, in his official capacity as secretary of the pennsylvania office of administration; anna maria kiehl, in her official capacities as chief accounting officer and deputy secretary for the office of comptroller operations. The fairness center provided legal services to a public employee who was forced into union membership and who sought to end his union membership, cease deductions of union dues from his wages which were being deducted against his will, and to recover unconstitutionally seized fees. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon public employees' constitutional rights and to provide protection to public employees who seek to not join a union, resign their union membership, and/or end financial support of a union in order to avoid having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks a ruling applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the union's policy operates. The litigant represented by the fairness center would receive little financial benefit, if any, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized. The litigation would not warrant representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake are relatively small for the plaintif”

“Curtis w. Thompson v. American federation of state, county and municipal employees, district council 89, local 4013; steve mullen, in his official capacity as director of american federation of state, county and municipal employees, district council 89; cumberland valley school district; frederick s. Withum, iii, in his official capacity as superintendent of the cumberland valley school district. The fairness center provided legal services to a public school employee who sought to resign from his public-sector union and to cease paying union dues to that union he no longer supported. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon public employees' constitutional rights and to provide protection to public employees who seek to resign their union membership and/or seek to end financial support of a union in order to avoid having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks a ruling widely applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the unions' policy operates. Based on the operative complaint, the litigant represented by the fairness center would receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized. The litigation would not have warranted representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake for the plaintiff were relatively small. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Plaintiff's operative complaint reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. Trometter v. Pennsylvania state education association and national education association. The fairness center provided legal services to the plaintiff, an assistant professor of culinary arts at the pennsylvania college of technology, in her challenge to the state education association and national education association'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 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 also 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 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. The litigant did not request attorneys' fees and costs in this matter. Phuong kim nguyen and van nguyen v. Administrative and residual employees union, local 4200. The fairness center provided legal services to connecticut state employees who sought to resign from their public-sector union and to cease paying union dues to that union they no longer supported. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public inte”

“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. Tammy c. Wessner v. American federation of state, county and municipal employees, council 13; david r. Fillman, in his official capacity as executive director of american federation of state, county and municipal employees, council 13; commonwealth of pennsylvania, department of human services; teresa d. Miller, in her official capacity as secretary of the pennsylvania department of human services; thomas w. Wolf, in his official capacity as governor of the commonwealth of pennsylvania; michael newsome, in his official capacity as secretary of the pennsylvania office of administration; anna maria kiehl, in her official capacities as chief accounting officer for the commonwealth of pennsylvania and deputy secretary for the office of comptroller operations. The fairness center provided legal services to a pennsylvania public employee who sought to resign from her public-sector union and to cease paying union dues to that union she no longer supported. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon public employees' constitutional rights and to provide protection to public employees who seek to resign their union membership and/or seek to end financial support of a union in order to avoid having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigant in that it seeks a ruling widely applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the unions' policy operates. Based on the operative complaint, the 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. Francisco molina v. Pennsylvania social service union, service employees international union, local 668; stephen catanese, in his official capacity as president of pennsylvania social service union, service employees international union, local 668; lehigh county board of commissioners; lehigh county office of children and youth services; phil armstrong, in his official capacity as county executive of lehigh county; and m. Judith johnston, in her official capacity as director of human resources of lehigh county. The fairness center provided legal services to a pennsylvania public employee who sought to resign from his public-sector union and to cease paying union dues to that union he no longer supported. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon public employees' constitutional rights and to provide protection to public employees who seek to resign their union membership and/or seek to end financial support of a union in order to avoid having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigant in that it seeks a ruling widely applicable across”

“Steven ramos, scott armstrong, and james williams v. Allentown education association, public school employees' retirement system, and allentown school district & (separate cases) in re appeal of melvin riddick & in re appeal of debra tretter. The fairness center provided legal services to plaintiffs, two taxpayers and a public schoolteacher/vested pensioner, in their challenge to allentown's longstanding practice of taking schoolteachers out of public schools to perform full-time work for the allentown education association and allowing those teachers to receive relevant pension credit. The fairness center's role in the cases is representative of a broad public interest in that the cases seek to ensure lawful and proper use of public resources and strengthening of the allentown school system. Additionally, the litigation would have a substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks a ruling applicable across pennsylvania, where similar arrangements abound. The litigants represented by the fairness center received no financial benefit from the litigation. The litigation would not warrant representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Attorneys' fees were not requested in this matter. Linda misja v. Pennsylvania state education association. The fairness center provides legal services to a public school teacher, 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 has reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. However, a request for attorneys' fees is not yet ripe as this matter is still ongoing. James r. Williams v. Pennsylvania state education association. The fairness center provides legal services to a public schoolteacher, a religious objector denied his right to fund a charity of his choice. The fairness center's role in the case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon union nonmembers' constitutional rights and to provide protection to union nonmember employees from having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. Additionally, the litigation would have a substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigant in that it seeks a ruling applicable across the 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, f”

“The process has not changed from the prior year.”