ILNews

Lake Co. judge strikes down Indiana right-to-work

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Lake County judge struck down Indiana's right-to-work ban on certain union fees in a second legal blow to the contentious law passed in 2012.

Lake Circuit Judge George Paras determined the law violates the state constitution by forcing unions to provide services to workers without payment. He wrote in his July 17 ruling that the law was immediately "null and void". Paras determined that the state interjected itself into a federal requirement that unions represent all workers -- whether they pay union fees or not -- when it established criminal penalties for violating the right-to-work law.

The United Steelworkers, which lobbied unsuccessfully against the law in 2011 and 2012, filed the suit against the state.

Indiana became the 23rd state in the nation to ban unions from charging mandatory fees for representation in February 2012; later that year, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder rushed through legislation making Michigan the 24th state to ban the fees. Indiana's extensive battle on the issue drew thousands of protesters to the Statehouse between 2011 and 2012.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller said Wednesday he would appeal and seek an immediate stay of the ruling.

"Strong opinions exist on both sides about involuntary union dues, but the Attorney General's Office has a duty to defend the laws the Legislature passes," Zoeller said in a statement Wednesday.

Lake Superior Judge John Sedia judge struck down the law last fall in a separate case, but stayed it from taking effect. That case is now being considered by the Indiana Supreme Court.

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, representing northwest Indiana, filed the suit being considered by the state's high court and praised the decision in the sister lawsuit Wednesday.

"We applaud the decision of the Court and congratulate the Steelworkers on successfully dealing another blow to Indiana's ill-conceived 'right to work' law," IUOE Local 150 president-business manager James M. Sweeney said in a statement Wednesday evening.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT