Freedom Updates
Advocates in Action
Press Release
Advocates for Faith & Freedom
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, March 3, 2022
CONTACT: nicole velasco @
media@faith-freedom.COM
For Immediate Release 03/03/2022, Los Angeles, California – Today, Unify Santa Clara County (“UnifySCC”) filed an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pending the disposition of their lawsuit filed against Santa Clara County, Sara H. Cody, and James Williams. The Plaintiffs request the Court immediately restore their jobs.
UnifySCC is an association that consists of members whose sincerely held religious beliefs prevent them from taking the COVID-19 vaccine or booster. Santa Clara County has relegated them to unpaid leave, depriving them of their livelihood, because they are “high” risk employees, as determined by the county’s arbitrary risk tier system. The Defendants did not engage in negotiations to determine if reasonable accommodations were available to the members of UnifySCC. However, Santa Clara County does provide reasonable accommodations to employees for medical reasons, as illustrated in emails UnifySCC relies on in its lawsuit.
“Santa Clara County’s vaccination policies are a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” says Mariah Gondeiro, an attorney for Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “The county has no compelling reason to treat similarly situated individuals differently based on religion.”
Furthermore, Santa Clara County’s vaccination policies are irrational, arbitrary, and counterproductive to community health. As stated by Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, the expert for UnifySCC, the county’s policies are irrational because “[t]he individuals placed in high risk are more likely to have contracted COVID-19 in the past and therefore have immune protection. It is counterproductive to public health to strip these employees of their employment when the public relies greatly on their services.”
In addition to immediate injunctive relief, UnifySCC is also seeking compensatory damages against Santa Clara County, including, at a minimum, lost wages.
###
Press Release
Advocates for Faith & Freedom
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, February 7, 2022
Contact: NICOLE VELASCO at 951-304-7583 (office)
media@faith-freedom.com
For Immediate Release 02/07/2022, Los Angeles, California – In June 2018, the United States Supreme Court in the seminal case called Janus v. AFSCME held that public employees are no longer required to pay money to a union as a condition of employment. The ruling also held that public employees must affirmatively “opt in” to the union before the union can collect money from their paychecks. A constitutional waiver requires a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver.
Following this case, dozens of lifeguards in California represented by the California State Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) sought to leave their union. However, the union insists on holding the lifeguards captive by enforcing an unconstitutional provision in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that they deceptively incorporated into the lifeguards’ membership applications.
These membership applications are a dead letter in light of Janus vs. AFSCME. CSLEA coerced the lifeguards into signing a membership application under threat of a fee scheme that unconstitutionally punished their pocketbooks. In other words, if the lifeguards did not sign a membership application, they were threatened with fees equal to or greater than full union dues. And, to add insult to injury, the union refuses to release the lifeguards and will continue garnishing their wages until June 2023, pursuant to a maintenance of membership provision in their CBA, a provision the union conveniently neglected to inform the lifeguards about.
“This case is no different than Janus v. AFSCME,” says Robert Tyler, President of Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “Just like Janus, who was forced to pay agency fees pursuant to a union security agreement in his union’s CBA, the lifeguards are forced to pay union dues pursuant to a maintenance of membership agreement in their union’s CBA. Both schemes amount to forced speech and are unconstitutional in the wake of Janus.”
This case will be heard in front of a three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit on February 8, 2022. A link to the live oral arguments can be found here, Portland Pioneer Courtroom.
###
Press Release
TYLER & BURSCH, LLP / ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE/ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2021
CONTACT: DESARÉ FERRARO AT 951-600-2733 (OFFICE)
MEDIA@TYLERBURSCH.COM
For Immediate Release 08/11/2021, Los Angeles, California – Orange County Board of Education and Children’s Health Defense filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate directly in the California Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon asking the Court to declare an immediate end to Governor Newsom’s declared State of Emergency, based on his own words.
“This Petition is not about masks, vaccines, or any other specific policy issue,” said Scott J. Street, an attorney for the Orange County Board of Education who successfully litigated a similar case against the State last year after state health officials arbitrarily closed gyms. “It concerns fundamental issues of governance that are the foundation of American self-government and which cannot exist in an indefinite state of emergency.”
The Emergency Services Act states that an emergency can be declared when there exists “extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state.” The Governor must terminate a state of emergency “at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant.”
Governor Newsom’s own words established the emergency was over when he argued last week in County of Ventura v.Godspeak Calvary Chapel that:
“the State no longer faces a threat that the State’s health care system will be overwhelmed. To the contrary, all available evidence suggests a resurgence of cases, hospitalizations. and deaths to the level that prompted the Blueprint [for a Safer Economy last August] and the other now-rescinded public health directives at issue is unlikely to occur in light of the percentage of eligible Californians who are fully vaccinated.”
“The Governor can’t have it both ways. He can’t claim victory over the emergency of Covid-19 in one court and immediately claim an emergency exists in another just so that he can keep the people of California in a headlock.” said Robert Tyler, counsel for Orange County Board of Education.
“This lawsuit seeks to restore democracy in California after a 17 month suspension. Californians are tired of being governed by unelected technocrats ruling us by arbitrary dictates with no scientific basis in violation of our constitutional rights to transparency, public participation, and due process,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Board Chair of Children’s Health Defense. “Government best serves public health when citizens participate in the regulatory process to craft policies annealed in the cauldron of debate as the regulatory system provides.”
“CHD-CA is extremely concerned about the lack of transparency of statewide orders affecting our children,” said Denise Young, Executive Director of Children’s Health Defense – California Chapter. “Parents and concerned citizens will never be able to participate in our representative form of government as long as Governor Newsom retains a death grip on his “emergency” dictatorial authority over the laws of California.”