28. The number of persons in the class makes joinder of the individual class  members impractical.   29. There are questions of fact and law common to all class members. Factually,  all class members are public employees and union nonmembers who have been forced  to pay “fair-share fees” to the NYSUT as a condition of their employment. Legally,  the U.S. Constitution and New York tort law afford the same rights to every member  of the class.   30. Ms. VanOstrand’s claims are typical of other class members, as each class  member has objected to NYSUT membership yet was subject to “agency fees” de- spite their refusal to join the union.   31. Ms. VanOstrand adequately represents the interests of their fellow class  members, and she has no interests antagonistic to the class.   32. A class action can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) because separate  actions by class members could risk inconsistent adjudications on the underlying legal  issues.   33. A class action can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) because an adju- dication determining the constitutionality of compulsory “agency fees” will, as a  practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of all class members.   35. Mr. Pellegrino seeks to represent a separate class of union members who  would have quit the union but chose to remain because they would have been com- pelled to pay “agency fees” had they resigned. This class includes all individuals who:  (1) are or previously were employed by the State of New York or any of its subunits,  including any school district in the State; (2) are or were members of the NYSUT  who would have quit the union had they not been forced to work in an unconstitu- tional agency shop. The class includes everyone who has ever fallen within this defi- nition, including former or retired teachers or teachers who have moved to other  States, and it includes anyone who comes within the class definition at any time be- fore the conclusion of this action.   36. The number of persons in the class makes joinder of the individual class  members impractical.   37. There are questions of fact and law common to all class members. Factually,  all class members are reluctant NYSUT nonmembers who remained in the union  only because they would have been forced to pay “agency fees” had they resigned.  Legally, the U.S. Constitution and New York tort law afford the same rights and  remedies to every member of the class.   38. Mr. Pellegrino’s claims are typical of other class members, as each class  member opposes the NYSUT yet has chosen to remain in the union on account of  the unconstitutional agency-shop arrangement.   40. A class action can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) because separate  actions by class members could risk inconsistent adjudications on the underlying legal  issues.   41. A class action can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) because an adju- dication determining the constitutionality of compulsory “agency fees” and the ap- propriate remedy for reluctant union members such as Mr. Pellegrino will, as a prac- tical matter, be dispositive of the interests of all class members.   42. A class action can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3) because the common  questions of law and fact identified in the complaint predominate over any questions  affecting only individual class members. A class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy because, among  other things, all class members are subjected to the same violation of their constitu- tional rights, but the amount of money involved in each individual’s claim would  make it burdensome for class members to maintain separate actions. 