Security guard wins groundbreaking ‘Janus’ religious accommodation

Ross is a Christian who opposes union affiliation on religious grounds. He informed both the SEIU union and Allied Universal upon his hiring in 2020 that his beliefs prohibited union membership and requested an accommodation. In 2022, his employer told him that union membership was mandatory and “demanded that [he] sign a payroll deduction, join the [union], and pay union dues,” according to case filings.

Ross responded by filing federal discrimination charges against the union and Allied Universal at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates unions and employers accommodate religious objections to union payments. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits mandatory union membership even in non-Right to Work states like California.

Ross’ legal battle continued into 2023 when Foundation attorneys appealed an NLRB decision dismissing the issue as an administrative error by the employer. In 2024, SEIU and Allied Universal settled the case, granting Ross full religious accommodation.

The settlement terms specify that Allied Universal and SEIU “will not enforce the collective bargaining agreement’s union membership and fee provisions against Ross . . . [and] will not force Ross to pay any union fees while he is employed by Allied Universal.”

In an article published in Baylor Law Review following the settlement, Foundation attorneys Bruce Cameron and Blaine Hutchison argue that post-Janus v. AFSCME rulings should standardize such accommodations for future cases involving religious objections to union membership and dues payment. The Supreme Court's Janus ruling established that forcing public sector employees to join or pay dues as employment conditions violates First Amendment rights.

The article highlights that Janus invalidated typical justifications used by unions—such as "free-rider" or "labor-peace" arguments—for compelling religious objectors to contribute dues money to charity. According to Janus, “nonmembers need not pay fees” for compensating unions or preventing labor unrest.

“The payment-to-charity scheme simply punishes individuals for following their faith,” notes the article. “Janus shows the proper solution: religious objectors need not pay any forced union fees.”

“Mr. Ross fought bravely with help from Foundation attorneys and has opened up new horizons for religious employees across the country,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Forcing religious objectors into any form of payment runs counter to America's core ideals of freedom of religion and association; it’s time courts recognize stronger protections for these rights."

Mix added, “Regardless of whether an employee’s objection is religious or otherwise, no American worker should ever be compelled to subsidize activities they oppose.”