The Transport Workers Union on Sunday filed federal lawsuit claiming the MTA violated its free speech rights by refusing to allow it to place $190,000 worth of ad space in city subway stations that show graphic images of workers who were viciously assaulted while on duty.
TWU Local 100 president John Samuelsen, in court papers filed in Manhattan federal court, even invokes President-elect Donald Trump to make the case.
The suit, filed by TWU lawyer Arthur Schwartz, said that while the MTA ruled that the union’s ad was too political, it has allowed citizens “to post thousands” of signs in the subway stations — particularly Union Square station — “mostly critical of the president elect.”
In court papers, Schwartz said the double standard “undercuts any contention that the subway system is not a public forum.”
“There is no question that the rejection of [TWU] Local 100’s ad violates its First Amendment rights,” the suit claims.
The suit claims what the MTA objects to is the content of the ad, which suggests officials are “unfairly suppressing wages.”
The TWU labor contract expires on Jan. 15 and transit and union officials are banging heads over pay and benefits.
“Every 36 hours, a transit worker is assaulted on the job,” read the rejected advertisement, which features photos of an arm bleeding from slash wounds, two beaten workers and a woman wearing a neck brace in a hospital bed.
“We deserve a wage increase for our sacrifices,” the ad says.
The ad seeks to win public support for a bigger raise.
The suit seeks preliminary action nullifying the MTA’s ad rejection.
Last month, Outfront, the company contracted by the MTA to vet advertisements, KO’d the TWU poster because it was deemed “political,” agency officials said.
An estimated 250 TWU workers suffer an assault while on the job each year, according to union officials. Many sustain serious injuries and sometimes death.
The MTA doesn’t comment on pending litigation but a spokesman reiterated that the ad was rejected because it was a political message about a disputed economic issue and that it was not a permitted commercial or public service ad.
