Freedom Updates
Advocates in Action
Press Release
ADVOCATES FOR FAITH & FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, June 10, 2022
CONTACT: nicole velasco @
media@faith-freedom.COM
For Immediate Release 06/10/2022, Murrieta, California – Yesterday, the San Diego Human Relations Commission held a special meeting to remove Dennis Hodges for saying “discriminatory” and “hateful” comments towards the transgender community. Thirteen brave Commissioners refused to remove him, but the threat of removal still exists so long as the Commission can rely on a vague and overbroad Code of Conduct to silence dissenting beliefs.
Mr. Hodges has dedicated his life to public service and ministry. He believes all creation is made in the image of God, and that we are to love all individuals, regardless of gender, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Mr. Hodges is unabashed about his Christian beliefs, though, and has expressed that humans are to express their biological and creational differences as men and women.
The event that precipitated the removal of Mr. Hodges was on November 9, 2021, when the Commission discussed an agenda item regarding amplifying the voices of the San Diego transgender community. Mr. Hodges abstained from voting because of his sincerely held religious beliefs.
“The Commission’s effort to remove Mr. Hodges sets a dangerous precedent that one can be removed from their position for holding traditional, religious beliefs,” says Nate Kellum, Chief Litigation Counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “Mr. Hodges never discriminated against the transgender community. He simply refused to endorse an agenda that is antithetical to his Christian beliefs.”
Pastor Hodges has retained Advocates for Faith and Freedom. Advocates is exploring all legal options available to Mr. Hodges.
###
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.
###