Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SANDY WINNER and LAURA BASTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,

) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. ) v. ) COMPLAINT-CLASS ACTION ) GOVERNOR BRUCE RAUNER, in his official ) capacity as Governor of Illinois and SEIU ) JURY DEMANDED HEALTHCARE ILLINOIS & INDIANA, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ NOW COME Plaintiffs, SANDY WINNER (“Winner”) and LAURA BASTON (“Baston” and collectively with Winner “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, through their undersigned counsel, for their Complaint against GOVERNOR BRUCE RAUNER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois (“Rauner”) and SEIU HEALTHCARE ILLINOIS AND INDIANA, (“SEIU”), state as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1.

This lawsuit is brought by Winner and Baston, each a provider of day care home

services in Illinois, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other such providers of day care home services in Illinois (collectively “Providers”), who elected not to join and SEIU LOCAL NO. 880 (“SEIU Local”) and were nonetheless to pay an “agency fee”, referred to by Defendants as a “fair share fee” (“Fair Share Fees”). Plaintiffs seek to enforce the law set forth by the Unit-

!1

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:2

ed States Supreme Court on June 30, 2014 in Harris v. Quinn, 134 S.Ct. 2618 (2014). Harris v. Quinn resolved a question as to whether persons who are not employees of the State of Illinois (the “State”) can be compelled to pay Fair Share Fees. Harris v. Quinn involved home health workers, relative to whom a State executive order authorized the withholding of Fair Share Fees from reimbursements the State owed them. The Supreme Court unequivocally held that the State unlawfully withheld Fair Share Fees from home health workers, which fees were ultimately paid to SEIU, the same defendant that is sued in this lawsuit. The Supreme Court’s ruling made explicitly clear that home care workers are not State employees for purposes of eligibility to receive statutory benefits because the State does not hire, supervise or terminate their services. The Supreme Court further held that the deduction of Fair Share Fees must be confined to fullfledged, public employees, because the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the collection of such Fair Share Fees from non-state employees who do not want to join or support the union. 2.

Like the executive order at issue in Harris v. Quinn, Executive Order 1 (2005)

(the “Order”), applicable to Plaintiffs, recognizes that Providers are not full-fledged, public employees of the State. The Order expressly states that it does not alter or effect: (a) the role of parents in selecting, directing and terminating the services of Providers under the State’s childcare assistance program; nor (b) the fact that Providers under this program are not State employees. 3.

The State has, for nearly ten years, compelled Providers to financially support

SEIU. After the Harris v. Quinn ruling, the State began complying with its clear directive, and discontinued the deduction of Fair Share Fees from payments to Providers such as Plaintiffs. !2

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:3

However, the State and SEIU have done nothing to remedy their past violation of Providers’ First Amendment rights. While the exact amount collected is not yet known, on information and belief, SEIU received millions of dollars annually from Fair Share Fees from Providers. This lawsuit seeks the return of all such Fair Share Fees that the State compelled Providers to pay. The damages are believed to be well in excess of $20 million. 4.

This case is not about politics, nor do Plaintiffs seek to politicize this issue. Re-

gardless of one’s views of unions, the law on this issue is now settled and the State had no legal authority to withhold Fair Share Fees, nor did SEIU have the right to receive them. Such fees could only be collected for Providers who specifically chose to join the union. As implemented, however, any Provider who elected not to join SEIU Local, was then compelled to pay Fair Share Fees to SEIU. Thus, all Fair Share Fees withheld from Providers and transmitted to SEIU were withheld on a mandatory and non-consensual basis, which the United States Supreme Court found to be unlawful and violative of Providers’ Constitutional Rights. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of Providers who chose not to join the SEIU Local but were nonetheless unlawfully and unconstitutionally compelled to pay Fair Share Fees to SEIU. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5.

This Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this case pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. §

1331, because it arises under the United States Constitution, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, because Plaintiffs seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court also has the authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 to grant declaratory relief and other relief based thereon.

!3

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:4

6.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1391 and § 1392 because

Defendants maintain offices and do business within this judicial district and events giving rise to this action took place in this judicial district. Plaintiffs are Providers who provide day care home services under the Child Care Assistance Program (the “Program”) operated by the State’s Department of Human Services (“DHS”). PARTIES 7.

Plaintiff Winner is a natural person and resident of Casey, Illinois, who is a

member of the class of Providers defined herein (the “Class”). Winner provides day care home services for children under the Program, and has done so since approximately 2000. Winner elected not to join SEIU Local. At all times relevant, the State deducted compulsory Fair Share Fees from monies owed to Winner for her services and remitted those Fair Share Fees to SEIU. 8.

Plaintiff Baston is a natural person and resident of Jacksonville, Illinois. Baston

is a member of the Class. Baston provides day care home services for children under the Program, and has done so since 1989. Baston elected not to join SEIU Local. At all times relevant, the State deducted compulsory Fair Share Fees from monies owed to Baston for her services and remitted those Fair Share Fees to SEIU. 9.

Rauner is named a Defendant in his official capacity as the Governor and chief

executive officer of the State. Rauner maintains an office in this judicial district. 10.

Defendant SEIU is a labor unions that transacts business and maintains an office

in this judicial district. !4

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:5

FACTS 11.

DHS administers the Program pursuant to 305 ILCS 5/9A-11 and 89 Ill. Admin.

Code 50.210 et seq. 12.

The Program provides low-income, working families with access to quality,

affordable child care that allows working families to continue working and contributes to the healthy, emotional and social development of the child. 13.

Families who participate in the Program (a “Participant” or “Participants”) are

required to share a Provider’s cost on a sliding scale based upon family size, income and the number of children in care (the “Scale”). 14.

Based upon the Scale, the State pays a portion of the cost a Participant must pay

to Providers for services in connection with the Program (the “Subsidy”). 15.

Providers are employed by Participants in the Program.

16.

Participants may select and hire any individual who meets certain requirements to

serve as a Provider. 17.

Participants supervise, discipline, and otherwise control the terms and conditions

of employment of the Providers, subject to certain provisions of the Program. 18.

Providers are not employed by the State.

!5

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:6

19.

The State does not control the employment relationship between Participants and

Providers, other than to require compliance with certain provisions of the Program. 20.

Based upon information and belief, more than 30,000 Providers were employed

by Participants in the Program at the time this Complaint is being filed. 21.

In 2005, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (“Blagojevich”) initiated a

two-step scheme to either force Providers into SEIU Local or, if they chose not to join SEIU Local, to withhold Fair Share Fees and pay them to SEIU. As part of this scheme, Blagojevich first designated SEIU as the representative of Providers vis-a-vis his administration, and then required Providers who chose not to join SEIU Local to pay Fair Share Fees to SEIU. 22.

On February 18, 2005, Blagojevich implemented the scheme by issuing the Order,

which is entitled “EXECUTIVE ORDER ON COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION BY DAY CARE HOME PROVIDERS”. 23.

A true and correct copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

24.

The Order provided that: (a) Providers are not state employees, stating in perti-

nent part: “day care home providers are not State employees for the purposes of eligibility to receive statutory benefits because the State does not hire, supervise or terminate their services”; (b) Participants in the Program control the hiring, in-home supervision, and termination of Providers; and (c) “The State shall recognize a representative designated by a majority of day care home licensed and license exempt providers, voting in a mail ballot election, as the exclusive representative of day care home providers that participate in the State’s child care assistance !6

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:7

program, accord said representative the same rights and duties granted to employee representatives by the Illinois Labor Relations Act, 5 ILCS 315/1 et seq., and engage in collective negotiations with said representative concerning all terms and conditions of the provision of services for day care home providers under the State’s child care assistance program that are within the State’s control.” 25.

In 2005, the Order was codified by the enactment of Public Act 94-320 (the

“Act”), which amended 305 ILCS 5/9A-11 of the Illinois Public Aid Code, Child Care, to provide as follows: Solely for the purposes of coverage under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, child and day care home providers, including licensed and license exempt, participating in the Department's child care assistance program shall be considered to be public employees and the State of Illinois shall be considered to be their employer as of the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly, but not before. The State shall engage in collective bargaining with an exclusive representative of child and day care home providers participating in the child care assistance program concerning their terms and conditions of employment that are within the State's control. Nothing in this subsection shall be understood to limit the right of families receiving services defined in this Section to select child and day care home providers or supervise them within the limits of this Section. The State shall not be considered to be the employer of child and day care home providers for any purposes not specifically provided in this amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly, including but not limited to, purposes of vicarious liability in tort and purposes of statutory retirement or health insurance benefits. Child and day care home providers shall not be covered by the State Employees Group Insurance Act of 1971..” 29.

A true and correct copy of the Act is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

!7

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:8

30.

The Act amended the definition of public employee to include Providers who

participate in the Program. 31.

In 2005, the State designated SEIU as the exclusive representative of Providers

with respect to terms and conditions of their employment within the State’s control under the Program (the “Terms and Conditions”). 32.

The Terms and Conditions were limited principally to the compensation paid to

Providers, as Providers are employed and supervised by Participants in the Program. 33.

As a result of the Act, the State designated SEIU as the compulsory representative

of Providers for the purpose of speaking to, petitioning, and otherwise lobbying the State and its officials with respect to limited aspects of the Program. 34.

Plaintiff Baston was sent by mail a document entitled “NOTICE TO ALL HOME

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF SEIU LOCAL 880” (the “SEIU Notice”). 35.

A true and correct copy of the SEIU Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

36.

On information and belief, a notice in the same form as the SEIU Notice was sent

to all Providers. 37.

The SEIU Notice notified Providers that SEIU had been designated as their

representatives.

!8

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:9

38.

The SEIU Notice states “Under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, SEIU

Local 880 serves as the exclusive representative of all Home Child Care Providers who provide services to families as part of the Illinois Child Care Assistance Program administered by the Department of Human Services Bureau of Child Care and Development.” 39.

Pursuant to the SEIU Notice, Providers could either “join Local 880 as a member”

or pay a “fair share fee” to Local 880.

40.

The SEIU Notice stated: “Whether you join the Local or not, you are obligated to

pay a fair share fee to the Local.” 41.

In the SEIU Notice, Providers were not given an option not to be represented by

42.

According to the SEIU Notice, the “fair share fee” was “equal to 86% of local

43.

The withholding of Fair Share Fees by the State began in 2005.

44.

The amount of Fair Share Fees withheld by the State was not shown on any check

SEIU.

dues.”

or stub given to the Providers. 45.

The information required to determine the total amount of Fair Share Fees

withheld from all Providers in the Class is not in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiffs.

!9

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:10

46.

The information required to determine the total amount of Fair Share Fees

withheld from all Providers in the Class is required to be in the possession, custody or control of Defendants and, on information and belief, Defendants have this information. 47.

The total amount of Fair Share Fees withheld from each Plaintiff, personally, is

unknown to Plaintiffs. 48.

A document entitled “Department of Human Services Provider Service Payment

Information For: WINNER SANDRA” for Fiscal Year: 2014, obtained from the DHS website (the “Winner Payment Document”) shows that Winner was paid $10,559.88 and that $410.06 was deducted in the twelve months prior to July 1, 2014. 49.

A true and correct copy of the Winner Payment Document, redacted to exclude

her social security number, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 50.

Approximately 4% of the total payment owed to Winner was deducted as Fair

Share Fees in 2014. 51.

A document entitled “Department of Human Services Provider Service Payment

Information For: BASTON LAURA” for Fiscal Year: 2014, obtained from the DHS website (the “Baston Payment Document”) shows that Baston was paid $16,096.38 and that $312.43 was deducted in the twelve months prior to July 1, 2014. 52.

A true and correct copy of the Baston Payment Document, redacted to exclude her

social security number, is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

!10

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:11

53.

Approximately 2% of the total payment owed to Baston was deducted as Fair

Share Fees in 2014. 54.

DHS and the Illinois Central Management Services (“CMS”) are parties to an

agreement with SEIU effective from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015 (the “Agreement”). 55.

A true and correct copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

56.

DHS and CMS entered into the Agreement pursuant to the Order and the Act.

57.

The Agreement requires that Providers employed by Participants in the Program

pay a compulsory fee to SEIU. 58.

Specifically, Section 3 of Article VIII of the Agreement states: Section 3. Deductions a. Upon receipt by the State, as pay agent and in conformance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, of written authorization from the Provider, union dues and initiation fees shall be deducted from the Provider’s payments and remitted to Union. The Union shall advise the State of any increases in dues or other approved deductions in writing at least forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date. The State shall continue to make such deductions, except where the authorization is revoked by the Provider. When a Provider has authorized deductions for Union membership, the warrant stub will state “Union Dues” and the amount of the deduction. If the Provider has not authorized payroll deductions for Union membership, the warrant stub will state “non mbr fees” and the amount of the deduction. b. Upon receipt by the State of written authorization (supplied by the Union) from the Providers, contributions to SEIU PowerPAC / SEIU COPE, or other SEIU-designated entities in an 1! 1

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:12

amount specified by the Provider on the authorization card shall be deducted by the State, as pay agent, from payments made to the Provider and remitted to the designated entity. The State, as pay agent, shall continue to make such deductions, except where the authorization is revoked by the Provider. 59.

Based upon information and belief, From 2005 until July 28, 2014, the State

deducted Fair Share Fees from monies owed to Providers (the “Deductions”). 60.

Defendants acted under color of state law by causing, participating in, and ac-

cepting the Deductions. 61.

Defendants received the Deductions and have not returned the sums composing

the Deductions to Providers. 62.

No compelling or otherwise sufficient government interest justified the Deduc-

63.

Plaintiffs were compelled to support the SEIU as their state-designated repre-

tions.

sentative for the purposes of speaking to, petitioning, and otherwise lobbying the State and its officials. 64.

On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Harris

v. Quinn, 134 S.Ct. 2618 (2014). 65.

In Harris v. Quinn the United States Supreme Court ruled that the mandatory

collection of Fair Share Fees by Personal Assistants in the Illinois DHS Home Services Program violated the United States Constitution.

!12

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:13

66.

Linda Saterfield, Associate Director, Office of Early Childhood, Division of

Family and Community Services, of the State sent a letter dated July 28, 2014, to Plaintiff Baston (the “July 28 Letter”). 67.

A true and correct copy of the July 28 Letter, redacted to exclude Baston’s address

and Saterfield’s telephone number, is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 68.

The July 28 Letter stated that the Harris v. Quinn did not apply to Providers (the

“Statement”). 69.

The July 28 Letter did not provide any legal or factual basis for the Statement.

70.

The Statement is incorrect as a matter of both fact and law.

71.

The July 28 Letter stated that the State would stop deducting Fair Share Fees from

payments to Providers subject to the State’s right to resume such a deduction at a future date. 72.

On information and belief, the State stopped deducting Fair Share Fees from

payments to Providers for services conducted after July 1, 2014, unless the Provider signed a membership card for full union membership, in which case the State continued to deduct union dues. 73.

All Fair Share Fees withheld from any Providers, until such time as any such

Provider signed a membership card for full union membership, were withheld unlawfully.

!13

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:14

74.

All Providers who paid any Fair Share Fees are entitled to reimbursement of the

full amount of all such Fair Share Fees. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 75.

This is a class action lawsuit brought by named Plaintiffs for themselves and all

others similarly situated, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3). 76.

The Class consists of all individuals who: (1) are Providers in the Program; (2)

have not signed a membership card for full union membership; and (3) have had Fair Share Fees deducted from monies owed to them and paid by the State to SEIU (the “Class”). 77.

Numerosity. The numerosity requirement for class certification is satisfied be-

cause: a.

the number of persons in the Class are estimated to number in the tens of thousands; and

b. 78.

joinder of the entire class is impractical.

Commonality. There are questions of fact and law common to all Class members

because: a.

all Class members who did not join SEIU Local were compelled to support SEIU as their state-designated representative for the purposes of

!14

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:15

speaking to, petitioning, and otherwise lobbying the State of Illinois and its officials, and b.

there are common questions of law for all class members, including: (i) whether deductions of Fair Share Fees for Class members who did not join SEIU Local, violate the Providers’ rights under the United States Constitution, entitling them to reimbursement of the withheld Fair Share Fees; and (ii) whether the Class is entitled to injunctive relief barring the State from resuming collection of Fair Share Fees, which it claims to have voluntarily ceased collecting?

79.

Typicality. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of all members of the Class be-

cause: a.

Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights were infringed upon in a manner identical to all members of the Class;

b.

Plaintiffs, identically to all members of the Class, were compelled to pay Fair Share Fees to SEIU as their state-designated representative for the purposes of speaking to, petitioning, and otherwise lobbying the State and its officials with respect to the Program, in violation of their Constitutional Rights; and

c.

Plaintiffs, identically to all members of the Class, have an interest in having unlawfully withheld Fair Share Fees repaid to them. !15

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:16

80.

Adequacy. Plaintiffs can adequately represent the interests of the Class because: a.

Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to the Class;

b.

all Class members, including Plaintiffs, have a cognizable interest in not being compelled to pay Fair Share Fees to support a state-designated representative in violation of their Constitutional rights;

c.

all Class member, including Plaintiffs, have a cognizable interest in having unlawfully withheld Fair Share Fees repaid to them; and

d.

81.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are experienced class action counsel.

This class action lawsuit can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), because

separate actions by Class members will create a risk of inconsistent adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants with respect to whether it is lawful to compel Providers to pay Fair Share Fees. 82.

This class action lawsuit can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) because an

adjudication that determines whether it is unconstitutional to compel a Class member to pay Fair Share Fees, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class members. 83.

This class action lawsuit can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3), because the

common questions of law and fact identified in this Complaint predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.

!16

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:17

84.

This class action lawsuit is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of the controversy because, among other things, all Class members suffered the same violation of their Constitutional rights, but the relatively small amount of money involved in each Class member’s claim would make it burdensome for individual Class members to maintain separate actions. COUNT I VIOLATION OF PROVIDERS’ RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 85.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the averments in paragraphs 1 through 84 as if

they were set forth fully herein. 86.

By compelling Plaintiffs and the Class to pay Fair Share Fees and to have SEIU

as their state-designated representative for the purposes of speaking to, petitioning, and otherwise lobbying the State and its officials with respect to the Program, Defendants abridged and violated the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class to freedom of association, freedom of speech, and to petition the government for redress of grievances under: (a) the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; (b) the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (c) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Violation of Rights”).

87.

The Violation of Rights caused Plaintiffs and the Class irreparable harm and

injury, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 88.

Plaintiffs and the Class also suffered monetary loss due to the Violation of Rights.

!17

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:18

89.

Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to damages to compensate them for injuries

caused by the Violation of Rights, including without limitation repayment of the full amount of all wrongfully withheld Fair Share Fees. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class against Defendants as follows: A.

Award monetary damages to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount at least equal to the Fair Share Fees taken from them by the State and remitted to SEIU, or any other representative designated by the State, and hold the Defendants liable for the full amount of said damages;

B.

Award interest on the wrongfully withheld Fair Share Fees taken from Plaintiffs and the Class;

C.

Award Plaintiffs and the Class their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

D.

Award Plaintiffs and the Class such other and additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT (AGAINST SEIU)

90.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the averments in paragraphs 1 through 89 as if

they were set forth fully herein. !18

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:19

91.

Plaintiffs neither authorized nor agreed to have Fair Share Fees withheld.

92.

SEIU unjustly retained and retains the Fair Share Fees Plaintiffs and members of

the Class were compelled to pay. 93.

SEIU had no legal right to compel payment of the Fair Share Fees and retain Fair

Share Fees for its benefit. 94.

SEIU’s retention of the Fair Share Fees is contrary to justice, equity and good

conscience as the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that Plaintiffs’ free speech rights under the First Amendment were violated by the compelled payment. 95.

SEIU has not refunded the Fair Share Fees it received from Plaintiffs prior to

Harris v. Quinn. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class against SEIU as follows: A.

Award monetary damages to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount at least equal to the Fair Share Fees taken from them and remitted to SEIU, or any other representative designated by the State, and hold the SEIU liable for the full amount of said damages;

B.

Award interest on the wrongfully withheld Fair Share Fees taken from Plaintiffs and the Class; and

!19

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:20

C.

Award Plaintiffs and the Class such other and additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT III MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED

96.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the averments in paragraphs 1 through 95 as if

they were set forth fully herein. 97.

SEIU retained and used Fair Share Fees withheld from Plaintiffs and the Class for

the benefit of SEIU. 98.

SEIU had no legal right to compel payment of the Fair Share Fees and retain Fair

Share Fees for its benefit. 99.

Plaintiffs and the Class were required to pay the Fair Share Fees as a condition of

their participation the Program as Providers. 100.

Payment of the Fair Share Fees by Plaintiffs and the Class was therefore nec-

essary in order to avoid an injury to their business, person or property. 101.

In equity and good conscience SEIU ought to repay the Fair Share Fees to

Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class against SEIU as follows:

!20

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:21

A.

Award monetary damages to Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount at least equal to the Fair Share Fees taken from them and remitted to SEIU, or any other representative designated by the State, and hold SEIU liable for the full amount of said damages;

B.

Award interest on the wrongfully withheld Fair Share Fees taken from Plaintiffs and the Class; and

C.

Award Plaintiffs and the Class such other and additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT IV PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

102.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the averments in paragraphs 1 through 101 as if

they were set forth fully herein. 103.

Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration, to be binding on the State, that Plaintiffs are

in fact not employees who can be subjected to mandatory deduction of Fair Share Fees as required by Harris v. Quinn. and that the State does not have any right to resume withhold Fair Share Fees from Providers. 104.

Plaintiffs further seek a declaration that the prior deduction of Fair Share Fees by

the State, and the receipt by SEIU thereof, violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and members of the class as required by in Harris v. Quinn.

!21

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:22

105.

By virtue of the Statement, there is an actual, justiciable controversy between

Plaintiffs and the State, pursuant to which the State believes that it has a right to resume deducting Fair Share Fees and Plaintiffs disagree. 106.

Plaintiffs further seek an injunction permanently precluding the State from

deducting Fair Share Fees from Providers’ pay and from SEIU or any other union representing Providers receiving such mandatory Fair Share Fee deductions. 107.

No adequate remedy exists at law relative to the Violation of Rights and the

States’ threatened resumption of deducting Fair Share Fees from Providers’, as embodied in the July 28 Letter, would subject Plaintiffs and members of the Class to violations of their constitutional and other rights for which no adequate remedy at law exists, and relative to which Plaintiffs and members of the Class will be irreparably harmed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows: A.

Enter a judicial declaration that the deduction of Fair Share Fees by the State, and the receipt by SEIU thereof, violated the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and the Class as set forth in Harris v. Quinn and as alleged above;

B.

Permanently enjoin the State from deducting Fair Share Fees from Providers; and

C.

Award Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

!22

Case: 1:15-cv-07213 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/17/15 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:23

Dated this 17th day of August, 2015. Respectfully submitted,

/s David A. Howard Plaintiffs’ Attorneys David A. Howard Michael J. Lotus THE HOWARD LAW FIRM LLC 307 North Michigan Avenue Suite 1214 Chicago, Illinois 60601 T: (312) 372-7048 F: (312) 372-9239 E: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs Jeffrey A. Leon QUANTUM LEGAL LLC 513 Central Avenue, Suite 300 Highland Park, IL 60035 T: (847) 433-4500 F: (847) 433-2500 [email protected] Firm ID #36824 Counsel for Plaintiffs

!23