Results

Our attorneys have secured million-dollar judgments and other large recoveries for clients through court litigation. When representing litigants or amicus curiae in cases, we also have achieved policy reform that benefits our clients and the community generally. In addition, our firm has successfully represented clients before Federal and State enforcement agencies. Those agencies include:

A sample of significant cases handled by our attorneys for litigants or amicus curiae is below:

Federal Court

  • Brown v. AFSCME Council No. 5, 41 F.4th 963 (8th Cir. 2022), cert denied 143 S.Ct. 491 (2022) (upholding the dismissal of the First Amendment claims against labor organizations based on the organizations’ good-faith defense related to the collection of agency fees)
  • Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization, 2 F.4th 722 (8th Cir. 2021) (reaffirming that labor organizations do not violate the First Amendment by serving as the exclusive representative of bargaining-unit employees)
  • Int’l Ass’n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transport. Local Union No. 10 v. A-1 Refrigeration of Hibbing, Inc., 447 F.Supp.3d 844 (D. Minn. 2020) (ruling after trial in the case that the arbitration award against the employer must be enforced – even though the employer never signed the contract underlying the arbitration award – because the employer was bound by the contract through the employer’s conduct consistent with the contract)
  • Bierman v. Dayton, 900 F.3d 570, rhrg. and rhrg. en banc denied 900 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2018), cert. denied 139 S.Ct. 2043 (2019) (upholding the constitutionality of exclusive representation by labor organizations under the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act)
  • Parson’s Electric, LLC v. NLRB, 812 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2016) (enforcing the ruling that the employer violated its duty to bargain when unilaterally changing the applicable employee handbook provision)
  • Greene v. Dayton, 806 F.3d 1146 (8th Cir. 2015), cert. denied 136 S.Ct. 2014 (2016) (holding that Federal labor law does not preempt the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act regarding home care workers)
  • Gerhardson v. Gopher News Co., 698 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2012) (applying Garmon preemption broadly and dismissing the employer's State-law fraud claims)
  • Fiend, Inc. v. Int'l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, 827 F.Supp.2d 1030 (D. Minn. 2011) (ruling that a request for an injunction to stay arbitration is a “labor dispute” for purposes of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and that the employer did not satisfy the Act’s stringent requirements)
  • Patterson v. IATSE Local 13, 754 F.Supp.2d 1043 (D. Minn. 2010) (holding that the Federal duty of fair representation preempted the State-law discrimination claims against the labor organization)
  • Osthus v. Laborers Dist. Council, 742 F.Supp.2d 1042 (D. Minn. 2010) (denying the National Labor Relations Board’s request for an injunction to require the labor organization to execute and abide by a Section 8(f) agreement in a secondary activity case)
  • Smith v. Local Union No. 110, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, 681 F.Supp.2d 995 (D. Minn. 2010) (permitting removal of State claims to Federal Court and granting the labor organization’s motion to dismiss)
  • Sandoval v. Am. Bldg. Maint. Indus., Inc., 578 F.3d 787, rhrg. and rhrg. en banc denied 578 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 2009) (ruling that other-acts evidence of which plaintiffs are unaware is “highly relevant” in harassment cases and adopting a broad definition of employer for liability purposes)
  • Trusteees of Twin City Bricklayers Fringe Ben. Funds v. Superior Waterproofing, Inc., 450 F.3d 324, rhrg. and rhrg. en banc denied 450 F.3d 324 (8th Cir. 2006) (expanding the scope of Section 301 preemption of State-law claims and dismissing all claims against the labor organization)
  • SternJohn v. Kreisler, 238 F.Supp.2d 1104 (D. Minn. 2005) (applying the statute of limitations to housing discrimination claims liberally and denying summary judgment for the defendants on the merits)
  • Ordahl v. Forward Tech. Indus., Inc., 301 F.Supp.2d 1022 (D. Minn. 2004) (adopting the “motivating factor” standard in a disability-discrimination case and denying summary judgment for the employer on that basis)
  • Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 U.S. 905 (2004) (prohibiting discovery into the immigration status of plaintiffs pursuing claims of national origin discrimination)
  • Albertson’s, Inc. v. NLRB, 161 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1998) (enforcing the National Labor Relations Board decision that the employer violated the law by administering its no-solicitation policy in a discriminatory manner and, moreover, by engaging in surveillance of employees’ protected, concerted activities)
  • NAACP v. Met. Council, 144 F.3d 1168 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 826 (1998) (on remand from the Supreme Court, concluding that State law claims were properly removed to Federal court under the All Writs Act in an educational adequacy class action)
  • Am. Fed’n of Television & Radio Artists Health & Ret. Funds v. WCCO Television, Inc., 934 F.2d 987 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that the arbitration award did not preclude the recovery of retroactive fringe benefits contributions and, further, barring the employer from relitigating the amount of fringe benefits contributions to be paid by the employer)
  • United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of Am., Local 1139 v. Litton Microwave Cooking Prod., Litton Sys., Inc., 728 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (enforcing the arbitration award, which ordered the employer to provide more paid time off to employees than required under the applicable contract)

State Court

  • Greene v. Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services, 948 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2020) (ruling that neither the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act nor the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act enables parties seeking decertification of a labor organization to obtain the contact information of bargaining-unit employees because such data about public employees is private)
  • Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. City of Minneapolis, 944 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. 2020) (affirming that Minneapolis has the authority to adopt and enforce an ordinance that requires all employers, even when they have no physical presence within the city’s boundaries, to provide paid sick leave to employees working in the city)
  • Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., 944 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2020) (reversing summary judgment for the employer and ruling that harassment claims must be analyzed under a liberal standard – which considers the totality of the circumstances in each case and “must evolve to reflect changes in societal attitudes towards what is acceptable behavior” – and, moreover, that harassment claims ordinarily must be decided via trial rather than summary judgment)
  • Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, 900 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2017) (confirming that protected activity under State whistleblower law need not be for the purpose of exposing an illegality and, moreover, that a good-faith whistleblower report means a report that is not false or recklessly disregarding the truth)
  • Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc., 897 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. 2017) (holding that undocumented employees can successfully prosecute workers’ compensation retaliation claims despite admitting that they do not have authorization to work in the United States)
  • Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools, 874 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 2016) (affirming that the limitations period for whistleblower claims under State law is 6 years)
  • LaMont v. Indep. School Dist. No. 728, 814 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2012) (ruling that harassment need not be sexual in order for an employee to have a valid sex harassment claim)
  • Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 755 (Minn. 2010) (establishing that the tolling provision of the limitations period for civil rights claims is construed liberally)
  • Midwest Pipe Insulation, Inc. v. MD Mech., Inc., 771 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. 2009) (holding that the National Labor Relations Act preempts State law challenges to a union’s market recovery program)
  • Queen City Construction, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 604 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (recognizing the authority of government agencies to adopt project labor agreements and enforcing such an agreement accordingly)
  • Hotel Emp. & Rest. Emp. Union Local No. 17 v. Criterion Rest., Inc., 352 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (enforcing the arbitrator’s award, which prohibited the employer from refusing to increase employee wages because of difficult economic conditions)
  • Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, AFL-CIO, 241 N.W.2d 292 (Minn. 1976) (ruling that an injunction against picketing, which prescribed the wording for signs and banners, violated the First Amendment)

Administrative Proceedings

  • Minnesota Management and Budget, 1 MPERB 1 (2021) (in the first decision rendered by the Minnesota Public Employment Relations Board, ordering the State of Minnesota to bargain with the applicable labor organization regarding the allocation of legislative appropriations to increase wages for essential workers during the ongoing pandemic)
  • Jon P. Westrum, d/b/a J. Westrum Electric and JWE LLC, 365 NLRB No. 151 (2017) (ruling that the signatory employer used an alter ego to evade the employer’s contractual obligations and ordering the employer to pay back wages and back fringe benefits as well as to provide other make-whole remedies and injunctive relief)
  • North Memorial Health Care, 364 NLRB No. 61 (2016) (holding that the employer engaged in serious and widespread unfair labor practices, ordering reinstatement of a union steward with full back pay, refusing to defer the case to arbitration, and expanding the remedies ordered by the judge to include the employer reading the remedial notice to all employees in the presence of a National Labor Relations Board representative and union representatives)
  • St. Francis Regional Medical Center, 363 NLRB No. 69 (2015) (ruling that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging a union steward for using health data as the basis for an information request to the employer, declining to defer the case to arbitration, and rejecting the employer’s jurisdictional argument that the employer based on the purported lack of authority of the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board)
  • Appollo Systems, Inc., 360 NLRB No. 80 (2014) (deferring the employer’s unit-clarification petition to arbitration and permitting the arbitrator to decide whether the employer constituted an unlawful double-breasting operation as a single employer or through an alter ego company)
  • Schwickert’s of Rochester, Inc., 349 NLRB 687 (2007) (requiring the employer to make all delinquent fringe-benefit contributions in order to protect employees’ economic interest in the future viability of the fringe-benefit funds)
  • Schwickert’s of Rochester, Inc., 343 NLRB 1044 (2004) (holding that the employer constructively discharged employees by unilaterally imposing new employment terms and, moreover, ruling that the results of multi-employer bargaining bound the employer despite the employer’s attempt to withdraw from negotiations)