Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Civil Action No. 19-12382

ARDESHIR ANSARI,

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY,
v. MONETARY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION 32BJ, DISTRICT 615 & TRUSTEES OF
CIVIL RIGHTS
BOSTON COLLEGE,
(42 U.S.C. § 2000e)
Defendants,

Ardeshir Ansari alleges:

I. Nature of the Case

1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e, et seq. to redress religious discrimination. Ardeshir Ansari, the Plaintiff, holds

sincere religious beliefs which conflict with joining or paying fees to the Defendant

Service Employees International Union 32BJ, District 615 (“Union”). Mr. Ansari’s

employer, the Trustees of Boston College (“College”), entered into a collective

bargaining agreement with the Union requiring that employees become and remain Union

members or suffer discharge. Mr. Ansari requested an accommodation of his sincere

religious beliefs, but the College continued to deduct Union fees from Mr. Ansari’s

paycheck and turn them over to the Union. Neither the Union nor the College have

returned the deducted fees to Mr. Ansari or provided proof of their payment to charity.

COMPLAINT- Ansari v. SEIU 32BJ, District 615, et al., PAGE- 1.

 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 7

II. Jurisdiction

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and

1343. It has the authority to declare the rights of the parties under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and

2202. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Mr. Ansari’s claims arose in

Massachusetts, the College is in Massachusetts, and the Union has a local office in

Massachusetts.

3. On January 31, 2019, Mr. Ansari filed charges with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the Union and College. On July 24, 2019, the

EEOC issued its determination that the Union and College violated Title VII. See

Attachment A. On September 3, 2019, the EEOC issued letters to Mr. Ansari which

advised that he had a right to institute a civil action under Title VII against the Union and

the College. See Attachments B and C. Having exhausted his administrative remedies,

Mr. Ansari complied with the EEOC notice by filing suit with this Court within the

ninety-day limitations period from the date of the right to sue letters.

III. Parties

4. Mr. Ansari is an “employee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).

5. Defendant Union is a “labor organization” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §

2000e(d) and (e).

6. Defendant College is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §

2000e(b).

COMPLAINT- Ansari v. SEIU 32BJ, District 615, et al., PAGE- 2.

 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 7

IV. Facts:

7. Mr. Ansari is a Journeyman Electrician employed at all relevant times by the

College.

8. Mr. Ansari works under a collective bargaining agreement which requires him

to join or financially support the Union or face discharge. To avoid discharge, he agreed

to have Union fees deducted from his paycheck.

9. Mr. Ansari is Muslim. He objects to financially supporting the Union because

of his sincere religious beliefs.

10. On October 1, 2018, Mr. Ansari gave written notice to both the Union and the

College of the conflict between his religious beliefs and joining or financially supporting

the Union. He asked that his Union fees be diverted to one of several charities. See

Attachment D.

11. Neither the Union nor the College have returned the Union fees to Mr. Ansari

or provided any evidence that they have been paid to a charity. The College discontinued

the payroll deduction of Union fees from Mr. Ansari’s paycheck sometime after the

EEOC found that it was violating Mr. Ansari’s Title VII rights.

12. In a letter dated October 8, 2019, Mr. Ansari gave the Union and College a

last opportunity to stop violating his religious beliefs. See Attachment E.

13. Mr. Ansari fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit.

COMPLAINT- Ansari v. SEIU 32BJ, District 615, et al., PAGE- 3.

 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 7

V. Causes of Action

Count I: Religious Discrimination

14. Mr. Ansari incorporates the preceding paragraphs 1 – 13.

15. Section 703(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

2 (c)) prohibits a labor organization from discriminating against an individual because of

his religious beliefs. Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42

U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a)(1)) prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual

because of his religious beliefs. Section 701(j) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(j)) defines religion to include an obligation to reasonably

accommodate the religious beliefs of employees. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 135

S.Ct. 2028 (2015) eliminated religious accommodation as an independent cause of action,

and instead required that it be pled as disparate treatment.

16. Mr. Ansari is member of a protected category, that being Muslims who believe

that they must not join or financially support a labor union.

17. Mr. Ansari is qualified for his position as an electrician at the College.

18. Despite Mr. Ansari’s qualifications, the Union and College agreed that he

would be discharged from his job unless he paid money to the Union. He involuntarily

paid the Union fees to avoid discharge. The money collected by the College and paid to

the Union has not been returned by either the Union or the College. Neither the Union

nor the College provided proof that the money collected from Mr. Ansari has been paid to

a charity.

COMPLAINT- Ansari v. SEIU 32BJ, District 615, et al., PAGE- 4.

 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 of 7

19. Employees outside the protected class, those who hold no objections to

joining or financially supporting the Union, are not having their religious beliefs violated

by an agreement to discharge them.

20. After being placed on notice of Mr. Ansari’s sincere religious beliefs and

violating those beliefs instead of attempting to reasonably accommodate them, the Union

and the College violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Count II: Quid Pro Quo Religious Harassment

21. Mr. Ansari incorporates the preceding paragraphs 1 – 16.

22. Mr. Ansari’s religious beliefs are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964.

23. The involuntary deduction of Union fees after Mr. Ansari gave the Union and

College notice of his religious objections was unwelcome.

24. After being aware of his religious objections to joining or financially

supporting the Union, the College and Union collected, and the Union retained, the fees

from Mr. Ansari’s paycheck. The Union fees were repeatedly deducted.

25. The payment of union fees is a condition of Mr. Ansari’s employment.

26. After being placed on notice of Mr. Ansari’s sincere religious beliefs, and

then requiring payment of the Union fees as a condition of his employment, the Union

and College engaged in quid pro quo religious harassment in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

COMPLAINT- Ansari v. SEIU 32BJ, District 615, et al., PAGE- 5.

 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 6 of 7

VI. Prayer for Relief

Accordingly, Plaintiff Ardeshir Ansari asks that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants Union and College, their

officers, successors, assigns, affiliates, and all persons in active concert or participation

with them, from engaging in any employment practice that discriminates against Mr.

Ansari based on his religious beliefs.

B. Grant a permanent injunction requiring Defendants College and Union to

inform all College employees and all who the Union represents that those with religious

objections to the payment of union fees are entitled to pay those fees to a charity.

C. Declare that Ardeshir Ansari has the right to have the entire fee normally

demanded by the Union paid to a mutually agreed upon charity.

D. Require the Defendants Union and College to pay all fees collected from Mr.

Ansari, together with interest, to a charity mutually agreed upon by the Defendants and

Mr. Ansari.

E. Require Defendants to pay Mr. Ansari damages for emotional pain, suffering,

and mental anguish that he has suffered because of their failure to promptly

accommodate his religious beliefs while at the same time continuing to threaten him with

discharge through the provisions of their collective bargaining agreement.

F. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from demanding or

collecting any Union fees from Mr. Ansari in the future, if Mr. Ansari furnishes the

COMPLAINT- Ansari v. SEIU 32BJ, District 615, et al., PAGE- 6.

 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 7 of 7

Defendants with proof that he has paid the amount of an objecting nonmember’s

compulsory Union fee to a mutually agreed upon charity.

G. Award Mr. Ansari his costs in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

I. Retain jurisdiction of this action for a reasonable period after entering a final

judgment to ensure that the Defendants comply with the orders of this Court and with the

requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Dated: November 20, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nicholas F. Casolaro

Nicholas F. Casolaro (BBO 681789)
Cleveland, Waters and Bass, P.A.
The Wingate Building
21 Wingate Street
Haverhill, MA 01830
Telephone: (978) 372-9699
(603) 229-1016
[email protected]

/s/ Bruce N. Cameron

Bruce N. Cameron (BBO 543142)
Blaine L. Hutchison (VA Bar No. 93987)
Pro Hac Vice Application Pending
Frank D. Garrison (IN Bar No. 34024-49)
Pro Hac Vice Application Pending
c/o National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation, Inc.
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, Virginia 22160
Telephone: (703) 321-8510
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ardeshir Ansari

COMPLAINT- Ansari v. SEIU 32BJ, District 615, et al., PAGE- 7.
 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 2
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Boston Area Office
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Government Center
Room 475
Bosron. MA 02203-0506
{617) s6s-3200
TTY (617) s65-3204
FAX (617) 565-3196

RE: Charge No. 523-2019-A0572 &.00548

Ansari v. Boston College & SEIU 328J, District 615

Ardeshir Ansari
400 Chestnut Street
Ashland. MA 01721 (Charging Party)

VS

Boston College (Office of general Corrnsel)

14 Mayflorver Road
Chestnut Hill, MA A2467-3912 (Respondent)

Service Employees international Union, Local 32BJ

25 West 1Sth Street
Nerv York, NY 10011-1991 (Respondent)

DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission, I issue the lbllorving determination as to
the merits of the subject charge filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended. All requirements for coverage have been met.

According to the above referenced charge of employment discrimination, Ardeshir Ansari,

hereinafter refen'ed to as Charging Party, alleged that Boston College and the SEIU 32BJ.
hereinafter refened to as the Respondent(s). required the Charging Party to join and supporl the
Local Union. Since the Char a1le he had sincere rel igious beliefs that prevented
requested to have the deductions of union fees
from his paycheck diverted to one of the charities identified by the Charing Party in a letter sent
to the Respondent(s) in October 2018.

First. the evidence show's that Charging Party does, in fact, have a religious belief that prevents
him fiom belonging to a trade union and/or from paying for union dues. The evidence further
shows the Charging Party'did provide information notif ing the Respondent(s) that he rvanted
the deductions from his paycheck used by the union to be diverted to any of the various charities
that he specifically, identifi ed.

The information shows that, at least up until the time the Respondent(s) prepared their position
statements for the current charge, the Charging ParV had still not been accommodated.
Specifically, the Charging Party has received several paychecks since making his initial

Attachment A
 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 2

accommodation request and the Respondent(s) have continued to deduct union dues from the
Charging Party's paychecks without diverting those funds to one of the third-party charities
previously identified by the Charging Party.

In short, it is unreasonable to think the Respondent(s) have still been unable to figure out how to
divert/donate the Charging Party's union dues to a third party charity, some five plus months
after the Charging Party made his initial religious accommodation request.

Based on the above, the Commission has determined that there is a violation of the statute. This
determination is final. The statutes require that if the Commission determines there is reasonable
cause to believe that violations have occurred, it shall endeavor to eliminate the alleged unlar.l'ful
employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Having
determined that there is reason to believe that violations have occumed, the Commission now'
invites the parties to join with it in a collective effort toward a just resolution of this matter.
Enclosed is a letter outlining the proposed conciliation agreement.

Disclosure of information obtained by the Commission during the conciliation process wil1be
made in accordance with the statute, and Section 1601.26 of the Commission's procedural
regulations.

If Respondent declines to enter into a conciliation discussion, or when the Commission's

representative for any other reason is unable to secure a settlement acceptable to the
Commission, the Director shall inform the parties, advising them of the court enforcement
alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission.

o"ru;;;)2ff^ffi)'*
JUL 2 4 2019

Kenneth An Date
Area Office Director
 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1-2 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 1
EEOC Form 161-A (11116) U.S. Eouel EMployMEHT OpponruN trY Corurutsstotl

Norce oF RrcHT To SUE

(CoNcttunoN Fetuat)
To: Ardeshir Ansari From Boston Area Office
400 Chestnut st John F. Kennedy Fed Bldg
Ashland, MA01721 Government Ctr, Room 475
Boston, MA 02203

On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is

CONFIDENTTAL (29 cFR 51601.7(a))

EEOC Charge No" EEOC Representative Telephone No

Edward J. Ostolski,
523-2019-00548 Investigator (617) 565-3214

TO THE PERSCN AGGRIEVED

This notice concludes the EEOC's processing of the above-numbered charge. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe
that violations of the statute(s) occurred with respect to some or all of the matters alleged in the charge but could not obtain a
setlement with the Respondent that would provide relief for you. ln addition, the EEOC has decided that it will not bring suit
against the Respondeni at this time based on this charge and will close its file in this case. This does not mean that the EEOC
iJcertifying that the Respondent is in compliance with the law, or that the EEOC will not sue the Respondent later or intervene
later in your lawsuit if you decide to sue on your own behalf.

. NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS .

(See the additional information attached to this form.)

Title Vll, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic lnformation Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you
you may file a lawsuit igainst the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your
lawsuit must be filed WITHIN g0 DAVS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be
lost. (The time limit tor frlingrer.rit OaseO on a claim under state law may be different.)

Equal pay Act (EpA): EPA suits must be fited in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the
alleged een unOerpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 vears (3 vears)
before you file suit may not be collectible.

lf you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.

On behalf of the Commission

u#Su'..rae!:'{;
Ffu* sEP 0 s 2019
Enclosures(s) (Date Mailed)
Feng K. An,
Area Office Director
CC: SEIU 32 BJ, DISTRICT 615
25 West 18th Street
c/o lngrid Nava, Esq.
New York, NY10011

Attachment B
 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1-3 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 1
EEOC Form 161-A (11/16) U. S. Eouel E tvt p t-ovu e NT O PPoRTU N lrY Coru m tssto t't

Norce oF RIGHT To SUE

(c oNctLtATtoN FATLURE)
To: Ardeshir Ansari From Boston Area Office
400 Chestnut st John F. KennedY Fed Bldg
Ashland, MA01721 Government Ctr, Room 475
Boston, MA 02203

On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is

CONFTDENTTAL (29 CFR 51601 7(a))
Telephone No.
EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative

Edward J. Ostolski,
(617) 565-3214
523-201 9-00572 lnvestigator

TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe

This notice concludes the EEOC's processing of the above-numbered charge
the mltters alleged in the charge but could not obtain a
that violations of the statute(s) occurred with respect to some or all of
the EEoc has decided that it will not brrng suit
setgement with the Respondent that would prouio" relief for you ln addition,
its file in this case. This does not mean that the EEoc
against the Respondeniat this time based onlnii cnarge an'd willclose
the EEOC will not sue the Respondent later or intervene
is certifying that the Respondent is in compliance with ine taw, or that
later in yoJr lawsuit if you decide to sue on your own behalf'

. NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS .

(See the additional information attached to this form')

Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age

Tiile vll, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic lnformation
and of your right to sue that we will send you
Discrimination in Employment Act: This *iir b" the only notice oi oismissal court Your
you may file a lawsuit against the respond"nil.J uno"r teoera.l law based on this chaige in federal or state will be
or your right io sue based on this charge
lawsuit must be filed wlTHlN g0 DAyS of your receipt ot ttris noiice;
i".i. iifr" t,rne limit forffiffiZffin a tlaim under state law may be different')

within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the

Equal pay Act (EpA): EpA suits must be fited in federat or state court
violations ihat occurred more than 2 vears (3 vears)
alleged EpA underpayment. This means tnai Lacrpay due tor any
bef6re you file suit riray not be collectible.

complaint to this office'

lf you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court

On behalf of the Commission

offi-wgw,ffi#,@'up,
SEP fi S 2O1g
(Date Mailed)
Enclosures(s) Feng K. An,
Area Office Director

cc:
Joseph M. HerlihY, Esq.
BOSTON COLLEGE
14 Mayflower Road
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3912

Attachment C
 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1-4 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 1

10fit2418

SEIU 32 BJ 400 Chestnut St.

25 West 18th Street Ashland, MA.01721
New York, NY 10011

SEIU 32 BJ, District 615

26 West Street, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02111-1207

Boston College
Department of Human Resources
129 Lake Street 110
140 Commonwealth Avenue
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467

To whom it may concem,

I have realized that my religious beliefs are in conflict with joining and financially supporting the
Union. I request an accommodation of my religious beliefs.
I request the SEIU Union divert 1000/o of my Union dues to one of the following charities.

Sincerely,
Ardeshir Ansari

- ASPCA- The American Society For the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

- Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
- Boston Children's Hospital
- St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Attachment D
 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1-5 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 2

NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.

8001 BRADDOCK ROAD, SUITE 600, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22160

Bruce N. Cameron, J.D. (757) 352-4522

(admitted MA, GA & DC only) [email protected]

October 8, 2019

Electronic Transmission Only

Ingrid Nava
Associate General Counsel
SEIU Local 32BJ
25 W. 18th St.
New York, NY 10001

Joseph M. Herlihy
General Counsel
Boston College
14 Mayflower Road
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3912

Re: Ardeshir Ansari v. SEIU Local 32 BJ & Boston College, Charge Nos. 523-2019-00548 & 00572

Dear Ms. Nava and Mr. Herlihy:

I represent Mr. Ardeshir Ansari in his attempt to obtain an accommodation of his sincere religious
beliefs against joining or financially supporting the Union. I understand that you represent SEIU Local
32 BJ and Boston College. If that is not correct, please pass this letter along to the proper attorney.

As you know, Mr. Ardeshir notified both the College and the Union on October 1, 2018, about his
religious beliefs. Neither the College nor the Union did anything to accommodate him. As a result, he
filed EEOC charges on January 30, 2019. In response to his charges, neither the College nor the Union
did anything to accommodate him. The EEOC, after investigation, on July 24, 2019, issued a cause
determination letter against both the College and the Union and in favor of Mr. Ansari.

After finding against your clients, the EEOC entered into conciliation with you to attempt to secure a
settlement. You continued to refuse to accommodate Mr. Ansari.

I’ve read both of your EEOC positions statements. The Union’s defense is that it is still “in the process
of determining how it can administratively divert dues to charity” and the College’s defense is that the
Union is not returning its phone calls (“College has made numerous attempts … to contact the Union to
discuss the accommodation”). Mr. Ardeshir requested an accommodation on October 1, 2018, and the
EEOC conciliation failed sometime after July 24, 2019. I’m doubtful that a court will look favorably on
what is now a yearlong failure to accomplish such a simple task.
Defending America’s working men and women against the injustices of forced unionism since 1968.
Attachment E
 Case 1:19-cv-12382 Document 1-5 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 2

On top of failing to accommodate Mr. Ansari, the College informed the EEOC in its position statement
that its policy towards Mr. Ansari under the collective bargaining agreement is to “discharge employees
who fail to meet the requirement to maintain Union membership.” As you should know, requiring
employees to maintain union membership by paying union dues has been unlawful for thirty years.
CWA v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988).

The EEOC has now issued a Right to Sue letter to Mr. Ansari. I write to give you one last chance to
settle. Mr. Ansari’s desire is to obey God; he is not looking to unnecessarily sue his employer or anyone
else.

The terms of settlement are:

First, that you will post a notice in all places where notices are normally posted stating that “Boston
College and SEIU Local 32 BJ have agreed to avoid litigation by, among other things, informing
employees represented by Local 32 that no one is required as a condition of employment to be a union
member. Those employees who have religious beliefs that conflict with financially supporting the
Union are entitled to a religious accommodation that allows them to redirect their Union fees to charity.”

Second, that you will return to Mr. Ansari all Union fees deducted from his Boston College pay since
October 1, 2018. He will then pay the returned fees to an agreed-upon charity. I note that recently the
College stopped deducting Union fees from Mr. Ansari’s paycheck.

Third, that in the future, if Mr. Ansari has an obligation to pay Union fees under the agreement between
the Union and the College, that he will be allowed to pay the agency fee amount to an agreed-upon
charity. The College and the Union will agree to either stop deducting Union fees from his paycheck so
that he can make the charitable payment, or they will cooperate in creating a payroll deduction that will
allow the money to go directly to charity.

You have until October 15, 2019, to inform me in writing that you accept this agreement. You have
until October 22, 2019, to return the entire fee amount to Mr. Ansari. If you do not meet these timelines
and we are forced to sue, there will be no settlement without the payment of Mr. Ansari’s attorneys’
fees.

Very truly yours,

s/Bruce N. Cameron
Bruce N. Cameron