In September, fourth-year mathematics Ph.D student Benjamin Logsdon filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Graduate Organized Laborers of Dartmouth-United Electrical Workers — the College’s graduate student workers union. Logsdon alleged that the union discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his request to be removed from the bargaining unit based on his religious beliefs.
Shortly after GOLD-UE’s contract agreement with the College in June, Logsdon requested to be removed from the bargaining unit — meaning he would no longer be represented by the union — because of the group’s “positions” on Israel, according to National Right to Work Foundation media coordinator Jacob Comello. The NRWF — a private legal organization that aims to “eliminate coercive union power and compulsory unionism abuses,” according to its website — is providing Logsdon with legal counsel.
“Logsdon is a Christian whose sincere religious beliefs put him at odds with GOLD union officials and the radical activity and ideological positions they are promoting, especially as regards to Israel,” Comello wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth.
According to UE Eastern Region field organizer Zachary Knipe, the “stated basis” for Logsdon’s request is “the UE’s call for an end to military aid to Israel, to pressure Netanyahu to end the siege of Gaza and negotiate a peace agreement.”
“The UE is a democratic union, with all members having the right to vote on UE National policy as set by the member delegates at our National Conventions,” Knipe wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth. “These policies, once adopted, are then enacted between conventions by rank-and-file leaders elected to the UE’s General Executive Board.”
GOLD-UE did not “officially endorse” the May 1 encampment protest or “adopt specific demands of the Dartmouth administration as called for by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement,” Knipe added. However, members voted for GOLD-UE to sign onto a May 6 statement titled “University Unions United for Free Speech and Protest,” which “strongly condemn[ed] the use of violent force and disciplinary actions by university administrations” against pro-Palestinian protesters.
United Electrical General Secretary-Treasurer Andrew Dinkelaker denied Logsdon’s request to be removed from the bargaining unit and “refus[ed] to offer Logsdon an accommodation that satisfied his sincere religious beliefs,” according to a press release from the NRWF.
According to an email sent by Dinkelaker to Logsdon on Aug. 30 — which was obtained and reviewed by The Dartmouth — Dinkelaker offered to allow Logsdon to pay the “equivalent of union dues” to a “mutually agreeable nonlabor, nonreligious charitable organization” instead of GOLD-UE. When an employee objects on religious grounds to a union’s support of certain political or social causes, standard accommodations can include reducing the amount they owe to the union, allowing them to donate to a charitable organization instead of paying dues or paying the amount owed to the national, state or local union, according to the EEOC website.
According to the EEOC website, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which protects employees from employment discrimination based on religion — stipulates that an employee with a religious objection to “the union’s support of certain political or social causes … may be accommodated if it would not pose an undue hardship.”
In an email statement to The Dartmouth, Logsdon’s lawyers from the NRWF — who were not named — wrote that Logsdon could easily be removed from the bargaining unit.
“The composition of any given bargaining unit is flexible and negotiable if not arbitrary: Dartmouth and GOLD-UE could simply agree to remove him from the unit with the stroke of a pen,” they alleged. “Instead, the union denied his request.”
NRWF staff attorney Glenn Taubman — one of the NRWF lawyers assisting Logsdon — said in an interview that removing Logsdon should not be considered “undue hardship” for the union or the College because people “come and go from bargaining units all day long,” such as when they graduate or are promoted to a supervisory position.
“It is not a hardship on Dartmouth and the union to remove anybody from the bargaining unit, especially somebody who has sincere religious objections to being in the bargaining unit,” Taubman said.
He added that the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy “set the bar very high” on what constitutes “undue hardship” for the union and the employer. In a unanimous decision, the court overturned the standard that employers were not required to accommodate a junior employee’s religious practices if the accommodation would result in any cost or hardship. The new standard set in Groff — known as the “substantial increased costs” standard — allows religious accommodations to be denied only if there is evidence that providing the accommodation would substantially increase the cost of the employer’s business, according to the ruling.
“‘Undue hardship’ is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “… Courts must apply the test in a manner that takes into account all relevant factors in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practice impact in light of the nature, ‘size and operating cost of [an] employer.’”
However, Knipe wrote in his email statement that Logsdon’s request to be removed from the bargaining unit is “illegal” because the union is “bound by law to represent all bargaining unit employees.”
“Removing him from the unit is not something the union is legally empowered to do, and refusing to represent Mr. Logsdon — even in response to his request — would subject the union to charges with the National Labor Relations Board for failing in its Duty of Fair Representation,” Knipe wrote.
According to the NLRB, the “right to fair representation” mandates that a union must represent “all employees.”
“Your union has the duty to represent all employees — whether members of the union or not — fairly, in good faith and without discrimination,” the NLRB website states.
However, Logsdon’s lawyers wrote that Logsdon would still prefer to not be represented by the union.
“The financial benefits Mr. Logsdon allegedly received due to union representation — which he never needed or asked for — have little value compared to his religious liberty,” they wrote.
According to the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board website, a “petition for modification” of a union’s bargaining unit may be filed by a public employer, the bargaining unit representative or another employee organization “to request the addition of positions to an existing bargaining unit, or to request the removal of positions from the unit.” The petitions also may be filed by a challenging organization “seeking to create a new bargaining unit … comprised, in whole or part, of positions to be removed from an existing bargaining unit.”
According to Taubman, the EEOC investigation is still ongoing. Once it has been concluded, the Commission will issue a determination letter about whether they believe GOLD-UE has engaged in “some kind of discrimination,” he said.
Logsdon directed a request for comment to Taubman.
