fbpx
Constitutional and Public Policy Litigation - Zimolong Law
504
page-template-default,page,page-id-504,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-title-hidden,qode_grid_1300,qode-content-sidebar-responsive,qode-child-theme-ver-,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.1.1,vc_responsive

Wally supports the ideals of free enterprise, individual constitutional freedom, and private property rights.   He has appeared on Fox 29, WPHT 1210 AM, and 990 AM WNTP to discuss increasing government encroachment on individual liberty. He has authored articles concerning economic rights that have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Philadelphia Daily News. He has litigated several noteworthy cases in defense of his client’s natural and constitutional rights. He is active in the Federalist Society and is an endowing member of the National Rifle Association.

 

Equal Protection. Paradise Concepts, Inc., et. al. v. Governor Thomas W. Wolf, et. al.  In a case that has received significant media attention, Wally is lead counsel in a class action lawsuit against the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other state actors concerning the constitutionality of COVID-19 related lock down orders. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is docketed at 2:20-cv-02161.

 

First Amendment: Road-Con, Inc., et. al. v. City of Philadelphia, et. al. (E.D.Pa 2020). In this case, Wally’s clients challenged the City of Philadelphia’s use of project labor agreements, which required city contractors to hire all employees from city selected unions and that required all employees to become members of those unions as a condition of employment.  In a first of its kind decision, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled the city’s project labor agreements violated the First Amendment by compelling union membership and the payment of union dues.

 

First Amendment: Smith v. NJEA, 425 F.Supp.3d 366 (D.NJ. 2019). In this case, Wally’s clients challenged the legality of New Jersey’s Workplace Democracy Enhancements Act, which set forth a restrictive procedure for public sector employees to resign union membership.  The federal court agreed that the act most likely violated the First Amendment, but dismissed based on standing.  The case is currently on appeal to the Third Circuit.

 

First Amendment: LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council (M.D.Pa. 2019). In this case, Wally’s clients brought a class action lawsuit against various government agencies and public sector unions alleging that they violated the First Amendment rights of public sector employees by compelling payment of union dues as a condition of employment. Case is currently on appeal to the Third Circuit.

 

First Amendment: Feibush v. Johnson, 203 F.Supp. 3d 489 (E.D.Pa. 2016).  This case involved a high profile dispute between a real estate developer and former political rival of a City of Philadelphia councilmember. The suit alleged that the councilmember retaliated against the plaintiff because the plaintiff decided to oppose him in an election.  After a week long trial, a jury gave a landmark verdict and unanimously ruled that the councilmember violated the First Amendment rights of Wally’s client.

 

First Amendment: Pawlucy v. The School District of Philadelphia, et. al.  (E.D.Pa. 2:12-cv-07134). In a case that garnered international media attention, Wally represented a Philadelphia high school student who was forcibly removed from class and verbally harassed by a teacher because she wore a t-shirt supporting the candidacy of Mitt Romney for president.  The case settled for a confidential amount.

 

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process: Bullard v. City of Philadelphia, 847 F.Supp.2d 711 (E.D.Pa. 2012). In this case, Wally brought suit on behalf of a real estate developer whose property was demolished by the City of Philadelphia without notice or an opportunity to be heard in violation of his client’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The federal court granted summary judgment in favor of his client and the case later settled for $140,000.