International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142
7 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2003–2022)
8 trusted published court opinions across 7 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 as an employer in 7 distinct federal employment cases between 2003 and 2022.
Of the 8 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 3 had a mixed result, 2 were dismissed, 1 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 1 ended in a ruling for the employer.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Breach Of Contract, and Whistleblower.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in HI.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 7 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 appears in 8 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Casumpang v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 (2005) — Plaintiff Win. Casumpang criticized the leadership of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 142. In response, the union retaliated against him—taking harmful action because he spoke up. Read the ruling.
Casumpang v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 (2005) — Mixed Result. Casumpang sued his union, claiming he was suspended in retaliation for reporting wrongdoing (whistleblowing). He also challenged the union's handling of 2003 voting procedures, alleging manipulation. Read the ruling.
Casumpang v. International Longshore, & Warehouse Union, Local 142 (2003) — Dismissed. Casumpang filed a lawsuit against the International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, claiming he was wrongfully terminated and retaliated against. The case involved questions about his union membership and eligibility to hold union office. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation (3 of 8), Breach of Contract (2 of 8), Whistleblower (2 of 8). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Breach of Contract and Whistleblower.
Published opinions span Hawaii (5), California (1). Hawaii is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Hawaii rulings and California rulings.
These published opinions sit within the nonprofit sector, where mission-alignment defenses sometimes complicate Title VII analysis.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
8 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 2 summary-judgment opinions, 0 ended the case in International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142’s favor and 2 let the worker’s claims continue.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
- Trial verdict
- A judge or jury heard the evidence and reached a decision. Relatively few disputes get this far.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Nonprofit employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.