Skip to main content Skip to office menu Skip to footer
Capital IconMinnesota Legislature

Legislative News and Views - Rep. Mary Franson (R)

Back to profile


Thursday, May 15, 2014
ST. PAUL – Rep. Mary Franson (R-Alexandria), a former childcare provider, released the following statement regarding Thursday’s hearing of Parrish v. Dayton before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
“Today Minnesota childcare providers are asking the court to allow them to continue to care for our precious children without the undue influence of public sector union bosses. As a former childcare provider, I know that forced unionization will only increase costs and create fewer options for working moms and dads,” said Franson. “If Democrats in St. Paul – empowered with single party control – hadn’t succumbed to special interest groups, our childcare providers wouldn’t have to spend time fighting to keep their homes free from union pressure.”
After Senate File 778 – the Family Child Care Providers Representation Act – became law in May of 2013, childcare providers in Minnesota filed suit in federal district court alleging the new law violated their First Amendment right of freedom of association by being compelled to be part of a union and pay union dues. Judge Michael Davis of the United States District Court in Minnesota ruled in July of 2013 that it was premature for such a suit to be filed since no union election had occurred.
Judge Davis later refused to issue a temporary injunction of the law pending appeal of his decision. However, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an injunction in the fall of 2013 for Minnesota’s childcare unionization law to remain in effect until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the merits of Harris v. Quinn – a similar case based out of Illinois. A ruling is expected by June.
The plaintiff childcare providers will be asking the federal appeals court to reverse the decision of Judge Davis from July of 2013, send the suit back the district court for a hearing on the merits, and halt implementation of the law pending the outcome of the case.