A dispute over whether a Catholic university must comply with state-mandated collective bargaining has led to a federal lawsuit that could have broad implications for religious institutions and their governance. In a verified complaint filed on June 1, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, St. John’s University seeks relief from what it describes as unconstitutional interference by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and its officials.
According to the court filing, St. John’s University is challenging PERB’s assertion of jurisdiction under the State Employment Relations Act (SERA), which would require the university to engage in mandatory collective bargaining with its faculty union. The complaint names Timothy Connick, Barbara Deinhardt, Rosemary Townley, Laura Delaney, and Joseph O’Donnell—all sued in their official capacities as PERB officials—as defendants alongside PERB itself.
The university outlines its history as a Catholic and Vincentian institution founded in 1870 by the Congregation of the Mission of St. Vincent de Paul. It emphasizes that its educational mission is deeply rooted in Catholic doctrine and values, noting that "ministry and Mission are inseparable—and faculty are entrusted with the sacred responsibility of guiding students in the Catholic and Vincentian educational and intellectual traditions." The complaint details how faculty contracts explicitly require adherence to these religious principles: "Teacher recognizes the resulting responsibility to adhere to this commitment and to the Mission of the University."
The legal conflict began after St. John’s allowed its most recent collective bargaining agreement with its faculty union to expire on June 30, 2025. Subsequent negotiations failed to produce a new agreement. When St. John’s withdrew recognition from the union—citing concerns about maintaining control over decisions central to its religious mission—the union filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERB on October 6, 2025. Although this initial charge was later withdrawn by the union in December 2025, further disputes followed.
St. John’s argues that continued enforcement of SERA by PERB would "impermissibly entangle[] the government (and the faculty Union) in its internal governance of religion- and Mission-related matters." The university cites Supreme Court precedent regarding church-operated schools and claims protection under several constitutional doctrines: "The First Amendment, the church autonomy doctrine, the prohibition against excessive government entanglement with religion, the ministerial exception, and the Free Exercise Clause all forbid precisely what PERB seeks to do here: transfer St. John’s authority to govern its religious affairs...from its religious leaders to PERB and the faculty Union."
The complaint provides examples where union involvement allegedly interfered with academic programs aligned with St. John’s mission—including curriculum changes blocked by faculty councils or grievances related to program administration—which it says undermined both accreditation efforts and new initiatives intended to serve disadvantaged populations.
In addition to seeking declaratory relief that PERB's actions violate constitutional protections for religious autonomy under both federal law and Supreme Court precedent (such as NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago), St. John's requests preliminary and permanent injunctions barring PERB from enforcing SERA against it.
The filing also describes alternative measures considered by St. John's—such as negotiating management rights clauses—but concludes these would not adequately protect its First Amendment rights because any such provisions would be subject to negotiation or third-party arbitration rather than determined solely by university leadership.
As remedies, St. John's asks for judicial declarations affirming its right to operate independently according to its faith-based mission without outside interference from state agencies or unions regarding internal governance decisions affecting curriculum, hiring, discipline, or other matters central to its identity.
Attorneys representing St. John's University are not named within this portion of the document; nor are specific judges referenced beyond identification of case number 1:26-cv-03280.
Source: 126cv03280_St_Johns_University_v_Connick_Complaint_Eastern_District_New_York.pdf