A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a restaurant industry lawsuit challenging a New York City law requiring fast-food employers to send money that workers want deducted from their paychecks to nonprofits, including groups they might oppose.
U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe in Manhattan said the National Restaurant Association failed to show that the November 2017 law compelled fast-food employers to subsidize employees’ speech, violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.
In a 70-page decision, the judge also said New York City easily demonstrated a rational basis for the law, including that it makes it easier for workers, especially those who lack access to banking services, to contribute to nonprofits.
The restaurant group and its legal arm, the Restaurant Law Center, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city’s law department, said the city was gratified by the decision.
The New York City Council passed the deductions law in May 2017, as part of a package of bills covering an estimated 65,000 fast-food workers in the city.
It allowed nonprofits to receive donations once they had obtained pledge commitments from at least 500 workers. Labor organizations were not eligible to receive the donations.
The restaurant group complained that the law could force employers to steer money to and endorse ideological and political groups they might disapprove of.
It cited as an example the “Fight for $15” campaign for a $15 an hour minimum wage for fast-food workers, which drew support from the Service Employees International Union.
But the judge said there was no reason to believe people would view the forwarding of employee donations as an expression of employer support for the nonprofits, even if donations were disclosed. He also found only a “minimal” risk of confusion.
“The deductions law does not compel speech, association, or subsidies from fast food employers, and is not preempted by federal labor law,” Gardephe concluded.
A $15 an hour minimum wage took effect on Dec. 31 in New York City at employers with more than 10 workers, and at all fast-food employers. The federal minimum is $7.25 an hour.
The case is Restaurant Law Center et al v City of New York et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17-09128.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Tom Brown
Aaron Zebley testifying will ‘establish the precedence’ Congress can interview all Mueller investigators: Democrat
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will swear in deputy special counsel Aaron Zebley along with special counsel Robert Mueller, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reported Tuesday.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell followed up on Maddow's reporting while interviewing Rep. Peter Welch, who sits on the Intelligence Committee.
"In your committee tomorrow, Aaron Zebley’s going to be a sworn witness at this stage. Do you expect committee members to solicit testimony from him as well as Robert Mueller? As much as Robert Mueller?" O'Donnell asked.
AG Barr’s slip up means Mueller can explain whether he wanted to charge Trump: Ex-WH attorney
Robert Mueller may have the green light to answer one of the questions Democrats are most excited to ask, Neal Katyal explained on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Tuesday.
Katyal, the former acting Solicitor General during the Obama administration, believes the rules have changed for Mueller since he submitted his reports and made his brief public comments.
Katyal explained, "We know that Mueller’s by the book, so he wants to stick to the four corners of the report. But the book has changed, because after he turned his report in, Barr said, 'oh, you could have actually told the American people did Mr. Trump commit a crime.' And if, now that Barr is saying that’s permissible for Mueller to have done ... I think Mueller should be asked that question by Congress and should answer that question because Barr is saying that’s fair game to answer, Mueller."
Conservatives are furious about Trump’s budget deal — and they’re whining to Fox News about it
No sooner was the news announced that President Donald Trump had reached an agreement with bipartisan leaders in Congress to lift spending caps and the debt ceiling, than rumors began swirling that hardline deficit hawks on Capitol Hill were discontented.
Several Republican politicians and officials noted to Fox News reporter Chad Pergram the broad sense of dissatisfaction with the deal, which authorizes far more spending than Republicans ever let President Barack Obama get away with and grows domestic spending in parity with defense spending:
A) There is consternation among many Republicans about the debt limit/spending deal…if it can pass, the state of play on deficit reduction, and now, President Trump’s standing. Concerned that Trump may lose some of his base backing budget caps/debt limit pkg