Targeting Union Employees For Layoffs Violates The First Amendment

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals brings an interesting labor decision.  In State Employee Bargaining Coalitation v. Roland, ___F.3d___( 2d Cir. May 31, 2013), the court found that targeting Union employees for layoffs violates the First Amendment (freedom of association).

In this case, the employer employed around 50,000 people.  75% of these employees were members of the Union, and 25% were not.  In December 2002, the employer fired only Union employees.  No non-Union employees were fired.

It is important to note that an employer can manage the size of their work force.  However, the employer cannot target a protected group (here, employees who associated themselves with the Union).  The reason for this is because by targeting a protected group, the effect is to inhibit employees from their freedom to associate.

Under the Constitution, in order for the employer to not violate the Constitution it must show that they used the less restrictive means to accomplish their interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve their goals.

The following are the pivotal facts of this case.  The employer’s interest was to manage their economical situation.  However, the laying off those Union employees had a minimal effect on their budget.  In fact, these Union-only lay offs were not included in the Balanced Budget Plan.  Further, the facts showed that because both Union and non-Union employees had the same health care and pension benefits there was no reason why only the Union employees were targeted.

via Adjunct Law Prof Blog: Targeting Union Employees For Layoffs Violates The First Amendment.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Appellate, civil rights, courts, discrimination, District Court, employment, federal, labor, legal decision, union

2 responses to “Targeting Union Employees For Layoffs Violates The First Amendment

  1. Pete

    What is the remedy?

    • Unfortunately the 2nd Circuit did not provide a remedy. From the articles I read Connecticut might appeal en banc. If that occurs, we would have to wait a while to see what happens.

      If you are looking for an example of a remedy under the First Amendment Freedom of Association, I would direct you to a 2006 District Court case between SEBAC (union here) and Rowland (Connecticut) – United States District Court District of Connecticut Civil No. 3:03CV221 (AVC).

      In that case the District Court went into detail about the remedies the union was looking for and some of the immunity arguments presented by the state.

      Good luck!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s