Freedom Foundation Stands by Slidewaters Against Jay Inslee’s Dictatorial Edicts
Governor Jay Inslee’s unconstitutional shut-down orders are not saving lives, but they are killing businesses.
Your Freedom Foundation remains proud to represent the owners of Slidewaters, a popular, family-owned waterpark employing more than 150 young people, while Jay Inslee remains determined to keep them closed for business during the crucial summer months.
In June, a federal judge dismissed a Freedom Foundation request for a temporary restraining order against Inslee’s threat to use his Department of Labor and Industries to investigate, fine and shut down business owners who merely want to try to keep their lights on and their employees paid.
The Freedom Foundation then filed for an injunction against the shut-down order, but it was also denied, giving a green light to Inslee’s tyrannical impulses. Encouraged, Inslee bragged about the victory during a press conference and announced that Slidewaters would be punished – and they were.
Served with a restraining order and a $10,000 fine, Slidewaters remains determined to save their business and their employees’ livelihoods. The Freedom Foundation is proud to stand with them, having already appealed the judge’s decision to the Ninth Circuit.
Boardman: Striking down union-backed initiative to restore workers’ speech, association, and equal protection rights
Case Name: Bradley Boardman, et al. v. Inslee, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05255 BHS
Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Description: SEIU 775 and SEIU 925 teamed up to create and finance a statewide ballot measure to stop the Foundation from communicating with in-home caregivers and childcare providers about their constitutional rights. The unions spent nearly $2 million to make I-1501 law. The Foundation is challenging I-1501 in federal court as an assault on the Foundation’s First Amendment speech and workers’ First Amendment rights.
Status: We are obtaining and reviewing discovery from the State of Washington and the Pro I-1501 Campaign.
Lincoln County: vindicating local governments’ right to institute transparent collective bargaining
Case: Lincoln County v. Teamsters Local 690, Case No. 128815-U-17
Administrative Agency: PERC (Public Employment Relations Commission)
Description: After Lincoln county passed the first-in-the-state Resolution declaring public employee union contract negotiations open to the public, the Teamsters sued the County before PERC. PERC threw out that Complaint. After negotiating in one open session with the County, the union returned but walked out after the one and only member of the public who was present at the meeting refused to leave the meeting. The County has filed its own Complaint against the Teamsters because the union has refused to bargain.
Status: On April 3, 2018, the PERC Hearing Examiner issued a ruling that both Teamsters Local 690 and Lincoln County refused to bargain with one another. This counter-factual and legally mystifying ruling is currently being appealed to the full Public Employment Relations Commission.
Burke: Invalidating Seattle’s illegal income tax and restoring the rule of law
Case: Burke, et al. v. City of Seattle, Case No. 17-2-18848-4
Court: King County Superior Court
Description: Seattle’s City Council adopted a graduated income tax it knows is unconstitutional and illegal. We represent 17 Seattleites who seek to strike down the tax because it violates state law, the City Charter, and the State Constitution.
Status: Our Motion for Summary Judgment was granted, and the King County Superior Court struck down the Seattle Income Tax Ordinance on November 22, 2017. The case is now on appeal. The City has asked for direct review by the Washington Supreme Court. If it does not accept direct review, the appeal will be heard by the intermediate Court of Appeals.
Entwistle: freeing hundreds of Oregon caregivers from SEIU
Case: Entwistle v. Governor Brown, et al., No. 6:18-cv-00053-AA
Court: U.S. District Court, District of Oregon
Description: Federal civil rights action representing 14 Oregon caregivers who have attempted from months (in some cases, over a year) to opt-out of union membership in SEIU 503 and compulsory union dues payments. The union has simply ignored their requests, until now. This case seeks to enforce caregivers’ rights set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Harris v. Quinn, and compel SEIU to honor their rights to leave the union.
Status: After the case was filed, SEIU 503 stopped deducting dues from all of the named plaintiffs but refused to stop illegally ignoring hundreds of other provider requests to opt-out. Our plaintiffs decided to proceed as a class action to obtain a declaratory judgment and injunction against the union and rectify this illegal behavior once and for all.
DaRe: protecting California caregiver’s right exercise her constitutional rights
Case: Marie DaRe v. United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01115
Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Description: Union unlawfully refused to allow an in-home caregiver to opt out of union membership and dues payments.
Status: the Union allowed DaRe to opt out, reimbursed her for the dues wrongfully taken, and paid her attorneys’ fees.