The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation is a public interest law firm that advances individual freedom and the rule of law in Michigan. The Foundation uses strategic litigation and public outreach to secure the liberties of Michigan's residents, workers, students and entrepreneurs.
SEIU Illegally Skims "Dues" From Home-Based Caregivers
The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation is representing Pat Haynes and Stephen Glossop in their efforts to prevent the SEIU from illegally skimming "dues" from their family members' Medicaid checks. This case has received national attention and was launched in September of 2012.
Find out more about the case.
U of M Graduate Student Fights Union Grab
The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation is representing Melinda Day in her efforts to prevent the illegal unionization of graduate student research assistants. The Foundation scored a victory on Aug. 8, 2011, when the Michigan Employment Relations Commission refused to certify a binding union election.
Find out more about the case.
Loar v. DHS
Read the full story here! The Loar brief includes a column reprinted from The Weekly Standard on our case.
Summary: The Foundation sued to end the DHS' illegal diversion of so-called "union dues" from state subsidy checks received by home-based day care providers who watch children from low-income families. The "dues" were funneled to a government-employee union that purports to represent more than 40,000 of Michigan's home-based day care providers, who are actually private business owners and independent contractors.
Result: The case was ruled moot by the Michigan Supreme Court after the DHS ceased to collect the so-called "union dues" and the DHS director stated that these home-based day care providers are not state employees.
Find out more about Loar v. DHS.
Jurrians v. Kent ISD
Summary: The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation sued 10 Kent County school districts and the Kent County Education Association to remove illegal contract language that states that the school districts will not privatize non-instructional functions. The suit was brought on behalf of five Kent County taxpayers.
Result: The suit was denied on grounds the clients lacked legal standing. The judge, however, specifically stated that his ruling "should not be construed as approval" of the disputed contract language. The MCLF is not pursuing further legal action at this time.
Find out more about Jurrians v. Kent ISD.
