Earlier this year, the Freedom Foundation filed a class-action lawsuit against United Domestic Workers of America, AFSCME Local 3930 (UDW) on behalf of in-home supportive services (IHSS) workers across California.
The suit, filed in El Dorado County Superior Court, challenges a disturbing pattern of conduct that targets some of the most vulnerable workers in the state.
The plaintiffs are caregivers who provide essential, often around-the-clock, care, to disabled family members and others in need. Many never signed up to join the union. Others explicitly said no.
Yet time and again, UDW took money out of their paychecks anyway, ignored opt-out requests and claimed workers were trapped in so-called opt-out “windows” they never knowingly agreed to.
That’s not representation. That’s exploitation.
At the heart of the lawsuit is California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which prohibits business practices that are unlawful, unfair, fraudulent or oppressive. While unions enjoy special privileges under California law, those privileges do not include the right to mislead workers, take money without consent or stonewall caregivers who are simply trying to keep what they earn.
IHSS workers are uniquely vulnerable:
These workers are exactly the kind of consumers the UCL was designed to protect.
On Dec. 12, the El Dorado County Superior Court heard United Domestic Workers’ motion to dismiss — arguing that the case does not belong in Superior Court at all.
According to the union, the claims must be heard exclusively by California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) because they involve public employees and union dues.
That argument is wrong.
While the public-sector labor law known as the Meyer-Milius-Brown Act (MMBA) assigns PERB jurisdiction over certain labor disputes, the Legislature has explicitly required UCL claims to be heard in Superior Court.
The union’s position would allow it to evade meaningful judicial review simply by labeling consumer fraud as a “labor issue.”
The stakes are clear: The plaintiffs are caregivers routinely deprived of information about their rights.
They are misled into joining a union they never intended to join. They have no practical way to stop unlawful deductions except by confronting the very union taking their money.
This case presents an issue of first impression: When the MMBA points to PERB, but the UCL mandates Superior Court jurisdiction, what happens?
The answer should be straightforward.
At a minimum, both forums must have concurrent jurisdiction. Alternatively, where laws conflict, courts are required to construe the narrower statute as an exception to the broader one.
Here, the UCL is narrower, meaning the matter belongs squarely in Superior Court.
Initially, the court indicated it was inclined to side with the union and send the case to PERB. But after hearing argument, Judge Gary Slossberg pulled back.
Recognizing the novelty and importance of the issue, the court withdrew its initial ruling and announced it would take additional time to review the statutory framework, legislative intent and case law.
The court acknowledged on the record this is a novel legal question, one that deserves careful consideration.
A written ruling is expected in approximately 80 days.
This case is about far more than one union or one county. It is about whether powerful institutions can use procedural loopholes to avoid accountability — while low-income caregivers pay the price.
The Freedom Foundation is committed to ensuring these workers get their day in court, their voices heard, and their money back.
We will continue to fight for them every step of the way.
