California in-home caregivers file lawsuits against three major unions for fraudulently enrolling them in memberships and deducting dues without consent, citing violations of their First Amendment rights.
At a Glance
- Three class action lawsuits have been filed in California against unions for allegedly duping caregivers into union membership
- Plaintiffs claim unions enrolled them without consent, manipulated forms, and ignored requests to opt-out
- The lawsuits follow the 2018 Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, which ruled that requiring public employees to pay union dues is unconstitutional
- Freedom Foundation attorneys represent the plaintiffs seeking to halt deceptive practices and secure refunds of improperly deducted dues
- Unions allegedly targeted caregivers in the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, deducting dues from Medicaid payments
Widespread Allegations of Deceptive Union Practices
Multiple in-home caregivers across California have initiated legal action against three major public employee unions, claiming they were fraudulently enrolled in union memberships and had dues deducted without proper consent. The class action lawsuits, filed in the Superior Courts of El Dorado, Sacramento, and Fresno counties, target unions representing caregivers in the state’s In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, which provides compensation to individuals caring for family members or others in home settings.
The plaintiffs, including Luz Kendrick, Claudiu Hotea, Sergei Muravskii, Swartika Lal, Laura Lozano, and Shirley Marsh, allege various deceptive tactics were employed by union representatives. According to court documents, these tactics included misrepresenting membership requirements, manipulating forms, and continuing to deduct dues even after caregivers explicitly requested to opt out. The lawsuits claim these actions directly violate caregivers’ constitutional rights as established by recent Supreme Court decisions.
Legal Foundation and Constitutional Claims
The lawsuits are being pursued under the legal framework established by the landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which ruled that public employees cannot be compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment. This decision fundamentally changed the relationship between public sector employees and unions by establishing that any financial support for union activities must be based on affirmative consent from the employee.
“Since the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, the unions have been acting deceitfully and using stall tactics to stem the losses of members and money,” said Shella Arcabes, one of the Freedom Foundation attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
The legal teams argue that unions have resorted to deceptive practices to maintain membership levels and revenue streams in the wake of the Janus decision. Particularly troubling, according to the lawsuits, is the targeting of caregivers who often lack familiarity with their rights regarding union membership and may be more vulnerable to misrepresentation or pressure tactics during mandatory orientation sessions.
How the Alleged Scheme Works
According to court filings, the process typically begins during mandatory orientation sessions for new IHSS caregivers. During these sessions, union representatives allegedly pressure caregivers to sign membership forms, sometimes misrepresenting them as routine paperwork required for the program. In other instances, plaintiffs claim their signatures were forged or electronically reproduced without authorization on membership documents.
“Every employee has the right to decide whether he or she will join a union. They don’t have to give dues to a union that uses a portion of that money to advocate for causes and policies that the individual worker does not support. We think people should be aware of these rights,” said Ravi Prasad, another attorney representing the plaintiffs.
Once enrolled, caregivers allege the unions make it exceptionally difficult to cancel memberships, implementing restrictive “escape periods” when opt-outs are permitted and ignoring or rejecting legitimate requests to cancel. Meanwhile, dues continue to be deducted from their compensation, which comes from federal, state, and local funding sources through the Medicaid program.
The Impact on Caregivers and Broader Implications
The financial impact on individual caregivers can be significant. Many IHSS caregivers are family members providing essential services to disabled or elderly relatives, often with limited income. The National Right to Work Foundation claims that approximately $150 million in Medicaid payments is diverted annually to unions in California alone through these dues deductions.
“It is unconscionable that SEIU union bosses are siphoning money out of these providers’ pockets merely because those they aid inside their own homes happen to receive state subsidies for their care,” said National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.
Beyond seeking refunds for improperly deducted dues, the lawsuits aim to establish stronger protections for caregivers’ rights and create precedents that would prevent similar practices in the future. The litigation also exposes tensions between constitutional rights established by the Supreme Court and implementation at the state level, where unions maintain significant political influence.
Seeking Resolution and Reform
The plaintiffs are seeking not only financial restitution but also injunctive relief that would prohibit the unions from continuing the alleged deceptive practices. The Freedom Foundation, which provides legal representation in these cases, has pursued similar litigation in other states, advocating for workers’ rights to choose whether to join or financially support unions.
As these cases proceed through California’s court system, they represent a significant challenge to union practices in the post-Janus legal landscape and could potentially impact how public sector unions operate throughout the state. For the caregivers involved, the lawsuits represent an opportunity to reclaim both their financial resources and their constitutional right to freely associate—or not associate—with labor organizations.
