OPINION & ORDER This case involves First Amendment challenges by professors at a public university to their compulsory inclusion in a bargaining group and consequent representation by a union whose political advocacy the professors claim to abhor. The six plaintiffs are faculty members (the “professors”) employed by the City University of New York (“CUNY”). For purposes of collective bargaining, the professors are exclusively represented by the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY (the “PSC”). The professors, however, have denounced the PSC’s political advocacy, particularly on issues relating to Israel and Palestine, and have resigned from the PSC. In this lawsuit against the PSC, CUNY, the City of New York (the “City”), and affiliated individuals, the professors claim that New York state law governing public sector unions violates their First Amendment speech and associational rights insofar as it compels them to be represented in collective bargaining by the PSC. Relatedly, they challenge a 2019 amendment to state law, which allows the PSC to forego representing non-members in individualized proceedings, such as investigations, grievances, and disciplinary hearings. Pending now are motions to dismiss from the PSC, CUNY, and individual defendants Thomas DiNapoli, John Wirenius, Rosemary A. Townley, and Anthony Zumbolo.1 These take aim at all three counts in the Complaint: Count One, which challenges the professors’ compelled association with the PSC; Count Two, which challenges the professors’ compelled association with other faculty and staff in the same bargaining unit; and Count Three, which challenges certain plaintiffs’ compelled financial support of the PSC through wage deductions that allegedly continued to be made after their resignations from the PSC. The motions addressed to Counts One and Two are brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); those addressed to Count Three are brought under Rule 12(b)(1). For the following reasons, the Court grants the motions to dismiss Counts One and Two, and denies the motion to dismiss Count Three as moot, on account of concessions by the parties and one plaintiff’s acceptance of an offer of judgment that together have significantly narrowed the scope of that Count. I. Background A. Factual Background2 1. New York’s System of Exclusive Representation and the PSC New York State’s Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law §§200, et seq. (the “Taylor Law”), puts in place an exclusive representation model of collective bargaining. Under the Taylor Law, the Public Employee Relations Board (“PERB”) separates public employees into distinct “bargaining units”3 for the purpose of collective bargaining. See id. §207. A bargaining unit comprises a group of public employees that share “a community of interest” with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment. Id. §207.1(a). A bargaining unit (or units) is then represented by a union after the union’s certification or recognition by the state. See id. §204.2. That union, under the Taylor Law, then has exclusive legal authority to speak for all employees in its bargaining unit or units. See id. §204. On June 16, 1972, PERB certified the PSC — a union — to represent a bargaining unit containing approximately 30,000 members of CUNY’s instructional staff. See Compl.
57, 60. The PSC and CUNY have entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) and Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) that, along with other agreements, today control many terms and conditions of the employment of the covered instructors. Id. 24; see also id., Exs. A (CBA), B (MOA). The bargaining unit today includes the six plaintiffs: Avraham Goldstein (“Goldstein”), Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano. See id.
