In a dramatic legal twist, three legal aid attorneys representing indigent clients in Long Island have filed a second lawsuit against their union, accusing it of retaliatory actions following their initial legal challenge. This latest lawsuit, submitted in Manhattan federal court on Monday by Ilana Kopmar, Diane Clarke, and Isaac Altman, seeks to halt disciplinary measures initiated by the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA) against them.
The attorneys previously attempted to block a union resolution calling for a ceasefire in Israel, branding it “objectively antisemitic” and a smear against the Jewish state. Their November lawsuit failed to prevent the passage of the resolution, which came months after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israelis.
Supported by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and the law firm Lieb at Law, the plaintiffs argue that the ALAA’s stance and actions reflect broader antisemitic trends, likening it to discrimination found in various public institutions.
Kenneth Marcus, chair of the Brandeis Center, emphasized the pervasive nature of antisemitism, comparing its presence in unions to its presence in educational and professional environments.
Despite requests for comments, the ALAA, affiliated with the United Auto Workers and representing approximately 2,700 New York-area attorneys, remained silent. The lawsuit names 28 individual union members as co-defendants, further intensifying the legal battle.
The union’s controversial resolution has also drawn the attention of congressional Republicans, leading to an investigation into alleged antisemitic behavior among its members. Kopmar testified before a U.S. House subcommittee, underscoring the divisive nature of the union’s stance and the misuse of member dues for politically charged resolutions.
Congressman Bob Good, chairing the subcommittee on health, employment, labor, and pensions, called for union leaders to respect the diverse views of their members and cease the use of dues for contentious political statements.
In defense, the ALAA maintains that the congressional scrutiny infringes upon its free-speech rights, asserting that their resolution is a legitimate exercise of these rights.
This ongoing conflict underscores a broader debate about free speech, antisemitism, and the role of unions in political discourse, with both sides entrenched in their positions and no resolution in sight.
