Federal Court

  • 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 unions 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)
  • 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 union)
  • 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, precluding 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)

  • 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 union)
  • 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 union to sign or 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 a State case to Federal Court and granting the union's motion to dismiss)
  • SternJohn v. Kreisler, 238 F.Supp.2d 1104 (D. Minn. 2005) (applying the statute of limitations in housing discrimination cases 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)

For our blog, click here

For a free consultation, click here