The ballot box is one of the most powerful tools we have. When we organize and vote together, we win — not just in the workplace, but in the courts, in our communities, and for future generations.
Judicial races don’t always make front-page news—but their impact is felt in every union job site across Pennsylvania. From the right to organize and strike, to wage theft, safety violations, and fair benefits—judges are the ones who decide whether working people get justice or get left behind.
All judges in Pennsylvania are elected. That includes local Magisterial District Judges, Common Pleas, Superior, Commonwealth, and Supreme Court justices.
- VOTING FOR: When you vote “FOR” a judge, you are electing someone new. This is your opportunity to support candidates who align with labor values.
- VOTING YES: When you vote “YES” to retain a judge, you are deciding whether a current judge should stay on the bench. If a judge has a record of protecting workers’ rights and respecting union issues, voting YES helps keep them in place.
This year, your vote is more than a choice, it’s a stand for solidarity. Electing pro-worker judges is how we protect the progress unions have fought for and keep the labor movement strong for generations to come.
The following judges have been endorsed by the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT
Justice Christine Donohue
Vote YES to RETAIN
CLICK HERE to watch a video from Justice Donohue
Personal and professional background that aligns with labor interests:
- Donohue was raised in a union family – her mother was a union seamstress with the International Ladies’ Garment Workers, and her father was both a coal miner and a city counselor, and a dedicated member of the United Mine Workers.
- As a private practice attorney, she handled personal injury and contract law – areas that often touched upon workers’ rights and employer liability.
Judicial role and reach:
- She has been a Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court since January 2016.
- Prior, she served on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (from 2008) and had a long-standing litigation practice.
- She’s also served on bodies that oversee judicial conduct, professional discipline, and boards of law examiners.
Stated priorities and endorsements:
- Over a dozen major unions have endorsed her during elections and public campaigning, reflecting their confidence in her pro-worker views.
- She has expressed concern for the accessibility of the court, transparency in court administration, and bringing the court’s work closer to the people – all procedural reforms that affect labor litigation.
Justice Kevin Dougherty
Vote YES to RETAIN
CLICK HERE to watch a video from Justice Dougherty
Judicial role and reach:
- He has been a Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court since January 2016.
- Justice Dougherty has contributed to numerous significant rulings during his tenure.
- Before his election to the Supreme Court, he served on the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas for 14 years, including time as an administrative judge.
Stated priorities and endorsements:
- Dougherty had strong backing from organized labor groups during his 2015 campaign.
- Labor groups and unions have once again provided substantial financial support for his 2025 retention campaign.
Specific decisions/opinions:
- Environmental Law – He joined rulings that affirmed the right of communities to protect themselves from harmful drilling practices by upholding local ordinances that limit fracking. He also ruled that revenue from oil and gas leases on state land must be used to preserve the environment.
- Election Law – Dougherty has taken stances on the requirement for dates on mail-in ballot envelopes, a highly litigated issue in Pennsylvania. In a split court decision before the 2020 election, he sided with those who believed ballots without the date should be rejected. The issue has continued to be contested in the court.
- Children & Family Rights – Before his time on the Supreme Court, Dougherty was known for his work in Philadelphia’s Family Court, where he launched programs to help at-risk children. On the Supreme Court, he has supported rulings concerning same-sex adoption, noting the importance of finding loving homes for children.
- Criminal Justice & Reform – He has voiced support for alternative sentencing and diversionary programs, especially for veterans. Dougherty also initiated mental and behavioral health programs within the judicial system.
- Government Checks & Balances – Dougherty has spoken about his role as a judicial check on the legislative and executive branches of government, emphasizing the judiciary’s independence.
Justice David Wecht
Vote YES to RETAIN
CLICK HERE to watch a video from Justice Wecht
Judicial role and reach:
- He has been a Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court since January 2016.
- His judicial offices include the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from 2012 to 2016, and the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County from 2003 to 2012, within which he served as Administrative Judge of the Family Division from 2009 to 2011.
- His background includes a long legal career where, fresh out of Yale Law School, he clerked for Judge George MacKinnon on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1987 to 1988, and also worked in private practice.
Specific decisions/opinions:
- Wecht authored the majority opinion in Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area School District) which was a 2017 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case that declared Pennsylvania’s Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) process, and thus the Section 306(a.2) of the Workers’ Compensation Act, unconstitutional because it improperly delegated legislative authority to the American Medical Association (AMA) to set the standards for evaluating impairment. This landmark decision effectively eliminated the IRE process and the ability of employers to force a transition from total to partial disability based on an IRE rating.
Themes & Impacts:
- Worker’s Compensation/Employer Liability: He has been a key figure in cases that define the boundary between what workers can receive under workers’ compensation vs. what they can sue over.
- Statutory Interpretation & Separation of Powers: Wecht often emphasizes that it’s the legislature’s job to make policy, not courts – when statutes are vague or delegate broad discretion without standards, he’s voted to strike or limit the delegation. When statutes are clear but produce harsh or inequitable results, he has dissented rather than agreeing with the majority’s expansion of rights beyond what the statute says.
- Benefit & Pension Law: Through the Public-School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS), he has shaped what counts as pensionable compensation. These decisions materially affect the financial outcomes for public school employees and retirees.
PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT
Judge Alice Beck Dubow
Vote YES to RETAIN
CLICK HERE to watch a video from Judge Dubow
Judicial role and reach:
- She’s been a judge on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania since January of 2016.
- Prior, she was a judge of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas from 2007 to 2015.
- Her background includes a long legal career as Deputy General Counsel at Drexel University, as City Solicitor and private practice.
Specific decisions/opinions:
- A prominent decision in the past decade in which she participated that directly impacted labor/wages in 2024 (McDonald’s hourly employees & wage payments – WPCL case) addressed modern payroll methods versus older statutory language that set a precedent in Pennsylvania for cases where employers try to require payment by payroll card instead of a check or direct deposit. Thus, the wage-payment scheme (a class action) was illegal under that statute, and the Superior Court upheld a summary judgement in favor of the employees. It was ruled that McDonald’s violated Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection law.
Judge Brandon Neuman
Vote to ELECT
CLICK HERE to watch a video from Judge Neuman
Judicial role and reach:
- Since 2018, he’s been a Judge on the Washington County Court of Common Pleas.
- Neuman served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives from 2011 to 2017.
- As a State Rep, he sat on the Labor & Industry committee, among others.
- On the bench, he primarily handles civil matters and the Veteran’s Specialty Court. He also handles criminal and family law cases.
Specific legislative law-making/work relevant to labor workers:
- In his time in the PA House, he was involved in legislation for work experience programs for high school students with disabilities. For example, he voted for the Work Experience for High School Students with Disabilities Act (HB 400), which directed the state’s Department of Labor & Industry to provide internships, on the job training, and part- or full-time work for students with disabilities in competitive settings.
- Before becoming a judge and while in the legislature, Neuman did work representing nursing home abuse victims and those neglected in elder care. Though that is more in the civil rights/tort realm than pure labor law, it is connected to worker safety/standards in care facilities.
- He also helped push for reform in rape kit processing, which is justice/public safety but not directly labor workforce rights, though it reflects legislators’ attention to systemic backlog and legal process.
- Last year, Neuman handed down a notable ruling that ordered Washington County to notify voters if their mail ballots have errors that would keep them from being counted, so that those voters would be able to cast provisional ballots.
- During his time in the legislature, one of Neuman’s biggest accomplishments was a successful 2015 law that sped up the processing of rape kits, which was aimed at addressing a major backlog Pennsylvania had at the time.
PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH COURT
Judge Michael Wojcik
Vote YES to RETAIN
CLICK HERE to watch a video from Judge Wojcik
Judicial role and reach:
- He was elected to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in 2015.
- Prior, he had a long career practicing law, especially in public-sector work (solicitor for Allegheny County), and has had experience with municipal law and labor and employment matters.
Specific decisions/opinions:
- Exeter Township: Code & Zoning Officials Excluded from Collective Bargaining (2018) – Judge Wojcik joined a majority opinion that municipal code and zoning enforcement officers are management level employees under the Pennsylvania Employee Relations Act and so are excluded from collective bargaining. This is significant because it clarifies who is management vs. non-management for union rights.
- Community College of Philadelphia v. PLRB (2019) – He affirmed a decision of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) that a certain action by faculty/staff was not an unfair labor practice, but rather a partial strike raising public safety/accreditation concerns, which falls outside of PLRB jurisdiction. This decision draws a boundary on what kinds of labor actions are protected/subject to labor law enforcement.
- Allegheny County v. Marzano (2024) – Worker’s Compensation Case: Judge Wojcik upheld a claimant’s right to benefits, including using a 40-hour workweek for computing average weekly wage (AWW), even though some of the work weeks had FMLA leave or reduced days. The court rejected arguments that AWW should be based only on the time worked, so as not to penalize someone for taking employer-approved leave. This is important for employees’ compensation rights: making sure that benefit calculations fairly reflect expected earnings, and that taking leave (FMLA) doesn’t unduly reduce benefits. It has implications for how employers and insurance boards compute disability or injury-related payments.
- H. Souley v. UCBR (2025) – On pandemic-era unemployment benefits (PUA and supplemental benefits): Judge Wojcik affirmed the Board’s denial of benefits for a period when the petitioner failed to show availability for work. This helped clarify eligibility limits and requirements for unemployment benefits, especially in emergency and special-program contexts.
- Waverly Heights, Ltd. v. UCBR (2017) – the burden of proving disqualifying misconduct under the statute, leading Judge Wojcik to affirm the decision in favor of the claimant. This case reinforces worker protections against losing unemployment benefits when misconduct is not clearly established.
- Foust v. PA Department of Human Services (2023) – An employee challenged their termination, with a key issue being whether the complaint was timely. Judge Wojcik ruled the challenge untimely and rejected equitable tolling. The judge also found that failing to respond to a new issue didn’t violate due process, since the employee had a chance to address it during the hearing. This case underscores strict procedural and timing requirements in wrongful termination and civil service claims, emphasizing how rigorously these rules are enforced.
Broader impact:
- Defining management vs. bargaining-unit rights – deciding sharply who counts as management or supervisory so as to exclude certain public employees from collective bargaining protections. This has downstream effects on union membership, bargaining power, and employer obligations.
- Protecting worker benefits in compensation and unemployment – ensuring that average weekly wages or benefits aren’t reduced unfairly due to leave or perhaps non-work periods; ensuring that procedural burdens are met by employers or boards when denying benefits.
- Procedural clarity and limits – emphasis on procedural requirements (timeliness, burden of proof) in employment law. While he tends to enforce procedural limits, he also ensures that boards/employers meet their legally required burdens.
- Narrowing what counts as unfair labor practice/what actions are protectable – drawing lines around what is protected labor activity (e.g. partial strike threatening accreditation). Also, narrowing who is protected.
Judge Stella Tsai
Vote to ELECT
CLICK HERE to watch a video from Judge Tsai
Judicial role and reach:
- She was appointed to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2016 and was elected to serve a full term in 2017.
- On the bench, she has presided over a broad range of cases, including civil, family, orphans’ court, and criminal matters.
- Before becoming a judge, she was a business litigation partner with a focus in areas like regulatory compliance, land use, and ethics.
- She served as Chair of Administrative Law in the Philadelphia Law Department (2000-2003), overseeing attorneys representing child welfare and social service agencies. These roles indirectly involve labor or employment matters.
- Her pro bono work reflects a commitment to social justice, having represented low-income individuals in matters ranging from custody and voting rights to civil rights, political asylum, and immigration—issues rooted in equity and access, although not directly tied to labor.
- She has served in multiple leadership roles, including the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Pennsylvania; involvement with Ethics, Board; zoning code reform; board trustees for community college. These experiences demonstrate her commitment to fairness, effective regulation, and ethics.
- Professional reputation and evaluations – In the 2025 evaluation for the Commonwealth Court, the Pennsylvania Bar Association listed her as “Highly Recommended.” The evaluation cites her diverse legal career, extensive trial experience, good legal writing, and fairness.
Specific decisions/opinions:
- Her judicial work seems to be most concentrated on civil, family, ethics, administrative, and criminal matters.