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 Education Minnesota as a condition of their employment.  Legally, the U.S. Constitution and Minnesota tort law afford the same rights to every  member of the class.   30. Ms. Hoekman’s claims are typical of other class members, as each class mem- ber has objected to union membership yet was subject to “fair-share fees” despite  their refusal to join Education Minnesota or its affiliates.   31. Ms. Hoekman adequately represents the interests of their fellow class mem- bers, 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 “fair-share fees” will, as a  practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of all class members.   35. Ms. York seeks to represent a separate class of union members who would  have quit the union but chose to remain because they would have been compelled to  pay “fair-share fees” had they resigned. This class includes all individuals who: (1) are  or were employed by the State of Minnesota or any of its subunits, including any  school district in the State; (2) are or were members of Education Minnesota who  would have quit the union had they not been forced to work in an unconstitutional  agency shop. The class includes everyone who has ever fallen within this definition,  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 before the con- clusion 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 union nonmembers who remained in Education Min- nesota only because they would have been forced to pay “fair-share fees” had they  quit. Legally, the U.S. Constitution and Minnesota tort law afford the same rights  and remedies to every member of the class.   38. Ms. York’s claims are typical of other class members, as each class member  opposes Education Minnesota yet chose to remain in the union on account of the  unconstitutional agency-shop arrangement.   39. Ms. York adequately represents the interests of her fellow class members,  and she has no interests antagonistic to the class.   41. A class action can be maintained under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) because an adju- dication determining the constitutionality of compulsory “fair-share fees” and the ap- propriate remedy for reluctant union members such as Ms. York will, as a practical  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. 