Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership | This website contains attorney advertising.
January 18, 2013

Judge Dismisses Suit Challenging Indiana's Right-to-Work Law

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana recently dismissed a lawsuit attacking the constitutionality of Indiana's right-to-work law. 

Indiana's right-to-work law prohibits companies and unions from making union membership and payment of union dues a condition of employment. In early 2012, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 (Local 150) filed a lawsuit against Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels seeking to invalidate the law on the grounds it violated the United States Constitution's equal protection clause by allowing workers to choose not to pay dues while other workers pay dues and support the expenses of union representation. The union also claimed that the law interfered with the union's free speech rights by stifling the collection of money that helps pay for its political speech. Additionally, the lawsuit claimed the law unfairly affected unions in the construction trade. Our alert about the filing of the lawsuit can be found here

On January 17, 2013, Judge Philip Simon dismissed Local 150's lawsuit. The Northern District of Indiana's dismissal of Local 150's lawsuit affirms that Indiana's right-to-work laws will remain in effect for the foreseeable future. 

If you have questions about Indiana's right-to-work impact on your business, please contact any Faegre Baker Daniels labor and employment lawyer.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.