Fairness Center Inc.

“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.”

“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 has reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. However, a request for attorneys' fees is not yet ripe as this matter is still ongoing. Jane ladley and christopher meier v. Pennsylvania state education association ("psea"). The fairness center provides legal services to plaintiff schoolteachers who were religious objectors denied their right to fund charities of their choice. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon union nonmembers' constitutional rights and to protect two union nonmember employees from having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks a ruling applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the union's policy operates. Based on the complaint, the litigants represented by the fairness center will receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized. The litigation would not warrant representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake are relatively small for individual plaintiffs. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Plaintiffs' operative complaint has reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. However, a request for attorneys' fees is not yet ripe as this matter is still ongoing. John r. Kabler, jr. V. United food and commercial workers union, local 1776 keystone state; wendell w. Young, iv, in his individual and official capacities; michele l. Kessler, in her individual and official capacities; peg rhodes, in her individual and official capacities; united food and commercial workers union, pennsylvania wine and spirits council; commonwealth of pennsylvania, pennsylvania liquor control board; thomas w. Wolf, in his official capacity as governor of pennsylvania; timothy holden, in his official capacity as chairman of the pennsylvania liquor control board; michael newsome, in his official capacity as secretary of the pennsylvania office of administration; anna maria kiehl, in her official capacities as chief accounting officer and deputy secretary for the office of comptroller operations. The fairness center provided legal services to a public employee who was forced into union membership and who sought to end his union membership, cease deductions of union dues from his wages which were being deducted against his will, and to recover unconstitutionally seized fees. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon public employees' constitutional rights and to provide protection to public employees who seek to not join a union, resign their union membership, and/or end financial support of a union in order to avoid having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks a ruling applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the union's policy operates. The litigant represented by the fairness center would likely receive little financial benefit, if any, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized. The litigation would not warrant representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake are relatively small for the pla”

“The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigant in that it seeks a ruling widely applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the unions' policy operates. Based on the operative complaint, the litigant represented by the fairness center would receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized. The litigation would not have warranted representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake for the plaintiff were relatively small. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Plaintiff's operative complaint reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. However, no attorneys' fees were sought by plaintiff in this matter. William weyandt, mark mills, chris taylor, brandon westover, cory yedlosky, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated employees v. Pennsylvania state corrections officers association and its affiliates; thomas w. Wolf, in his official capacity as governor of the commonwealth of pennsylvania; michael newsome, in his official capacity as secretary of the pennsylvania office of administration; and brian t. Lyman, in his official capacity as chief accounting officer for the commonwealth of pennsylvania. The fairness center provided legal services to pennsylvania public employees who sought to resign from their public-sector union and to cease paying union dues to that union they no longer supported. The fairness center's role in this case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify or expand upon public employees' constitutional rights and to provide protection to public employees who seek to resign their union membership and/or seek to end financial support of a union in order to avoid having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigant in that it seeks a ruling widely applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the unions' policy operates. Based on the operative complaint, the litigants represented by the fairness center would receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized. The litigation would not have warranted representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake for the plaintiffs were relatively small. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Plaintiffs' operative complaint reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. However, no attorneys' fees were sought by plaintiffs in this matter. Office of the governor v. Lindsey wanner and the fairness center. The fairness center requested public records from the governor's office pursuant to pennsylvania's right-to-know law relating to the implementation of the governor's executive order which created a pathway to unionize homecare workers. The fairness center's role in the case is representative of a broad public interest in that it seeks to scrutinize the work performed by government officials in implementing an executive order which could potentially unionize an entirely new class of pennsylvania workers. The litigation has substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that i”

“While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake for the plaintiff were relatively small. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Plaintiffs' operative complaint has reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. However, a request for attorneys' fees is not yet ripe as this matter is still ongoing. Cory yedlosky; william weyandt; and chris taylor v. Pennsylvania state corrections officers association, local sci-huntingdon; douglas clark, in his official and personal capacities; bryan peroni, in his official and personal capacities; and pennsylvania state corrections officers association. The fairness center provides legal services to three pennsylvania public employees who seek answers related to tens of thousands of dollars of their public-sector union's funds that were expended in violation of union rules. The fairness center's role in the case is representative of a broad public interest in that the case seeks to clarify the rights that union members have to hold unions accountable for following rules regarding the handling of member dues. The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigants in that it seeks a ruling which further defines a union's duty to bargaining unit members in the handling of union members' funds. Based on the operative complaint, the litigants represented by the fairness center would receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation aside from return of funds taken from union members but expended in violation of the union's rules. The litigation would not warrant representation from private sources because the financial amounts at stake are relatively small for individual plaintiffs and it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Plaintiffs' operative complaint has reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. However, a request for attorneys' fees is not yet ripe as this matter is still ongoing. Ralph r. Rhodes v. Afscme, council 13; and david r. Fillman, in his official capacity as executive director of afscme, council 13. The fairness center provided legal services to a pennsylvania public employee who resigned from his public-sector union and sought to cease paying union dues to that union he no longer supported. The fairness center's role in this case was representative of a broad public interest in that the case sought to clarify or expand upon public employees' constitutional rights and to provide protection to public employees who seek to resign their union membership and/or seek to end financial support of a union in order to avoid having their money used in connection with causes they do not support. The litigation had the potential to substantially impact interests beyond the interest of the litigant in that it sought a ruling widely applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the union's policies operated. Based on the operative complaint, the litigant represented by the fairness center would receive little financial benefit from the litigation, aside from recovering nominal damages and union dues wrongfully deducted from his wages. The litigation would not have warranted representation from private sources because the financial amounts at stake for the plaintiff were relatively small and it would not have been financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general pu”

“The litigation would have substantial impact beyond the interest of the litigant in that it sought a ruling widely applicable across pennsylvania, throughout which the union's policy operates. Based on the operative complaint, the litigant represented by the fairness center would receive little financial benefit, if any, from the litigation, aside from nominal damages and a return of funds unconstitutionally seized. The litigation would not have warranted representation from private sources because it would not be financially beneficial to a private law firm to take the case. While the impact is significant, the financial amounts at stake for the plaintiff were relatively small. The mission of the fairness center is made possible by the generous support of its donors, grants from charitable organizations, and the general public. The fairness center will not accept fees for services. Plaintiff's operative complaint reserved the right to request that the court award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to federal law. Attorneys' fees and costs were obtained in this matter.”

“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.”