Teachers for Choice

Teachers for Choice

Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Timothy Tobin's avatar
Timothy Tobin
Apr 14

IF You More Than Pretend to Care About NYC Children And Teachers… DO-THE-RIGHT-THING & HIRE THEM BACK!

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
1 reply by Michael Kane
Elias Ruiz's avatar
Elias Ruiz
Apr 14

Letter to my fellow teachers in CA.

Greetings potential fellow collective bargaining unit members, [Simply block me if you don't want to hear from me. Sorry if I have your information, but the release of your personally identifiable information did not originate from me.]

Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB") Decision 2563E determined that employees who have access to an employer’s email system have the right to use that system during non-work time for Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)-protected communications. During non-work time, please spread the word via work e-mail to inform your colleagues about the struggle to stop discrimination.

Mr. Ruiz's contention is this: If California law forces Mr. Ruiz to have an exclusive representative [TTA], then TTA should not be given a loophole [e.g., "internal union affairs doctrine"] to discriminate against him for exercising his right not to pay union dues. Government Code § 3543.6 specifically prohibits employee organizations (exclusive representatives) from discriminating against employees based on their exercise of rights under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), including the right to refrain from joining or financially supporting a union [Cal. Gov. Code § 3543 does not mandate union membership or financial support].

On April 11, 2025, PERB dismissed Mr. Ruiz's unfair labor practice charge against TTA. However, Mr. Ruiz appealed the dismissal. If, after appellate review, the Board upholds the dismissal due to the "internal union affairs doctrine," Mr. Ruiz will take the controversy to the state or federal court for judicial review.

Strict Scrutiny and Fundamental Rights

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This landmark Supreme Court case addressed racial segregation in public schools, establishing that "separate but equal" educational facilities are inherently unequal and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ruiz equates the "internal union affairs" doctrine to the "separate but equal" doctrine. Under the internal union affairs doctrine, the union is permitted by PERB to discriminate against non-dues-paying members and exclude them from union meetings and union votes as long as the union gives the non-dues-paying members some other backchannel form of communication as if that's not inherently unequal.

Roberts v. Jaycees (1984): This U.S. Supreme Court case established that associations [e.g., NEA/CTA/TTA] have a right to free association, but the Court also recognized that this right can be limited by the government's interest in preventing discrimination [e.g., excluding non-dues-paying collective bargaining unit members from employee organization meetings and voting on employee organization matters affection all employees in the organization]. The ruling suggests that when a law affects fundamental rights [e.g., the freedom of association and equal protection], courts should apply strict scrutiny to ensure that any infringement serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored.

Janus v. AFSCME (2018): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring non-members to pay union fees violates their First Amendment rights. This decision emphasizes the importance of individual choice in union membership and financial support, reinforcing that public employees cannot be compelled to support a union they do not wish to join. Janus highlights that state laws allowing exclusive representation must respect individual rights, particularly in the context of free speech and association.

Implications for Ruiz

Given these precedents, Ruiz challenges the internal union affairs doctrine based on the infringement of his fundamental rights:

Strict Scrutiny: Ruiz argues that the restrictions imposed by the union on participation in meetings and voting based on dues-paying status infringe upon his First Amendment rights. Under strict scrutiny, the union and state must demonstrate that these restrictions serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly tailored.

Legal Grounding: Ruiz leverages the Janus ruling to argue that the exclusive representation laws are unconstitutional if they allow for discrimination against non-dues-paying members. Ruiz contends that these laws fail to respect the rights affirmed in Janus.

California Rights: In addition to federal protections, Ruiz invokes California’s constitutional provisions that guarantee free expression and equal protection, arguing that the state’s laws must align with these fundamental rights.

Conclusion

Ruiz has a strong basis to argue for strict scrutiny in his case, drawing upon the principles established in Brown, Roberts and Janus. If he can effectively demonstrate that the internal union affairs doctrine infringes upon his fundamental rights without sufficient justification, he may have a compelling legal argument to dismantle such practices.

Thank you for your time,

Mr. E. Ruiz

Expand full comment
Reply
Share
1 more comment...

No posts

© 2025 Michael Kane
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture