Pipefitters Association Local Union 597
3 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2003–2016)
4 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Pipefitters Association Local Union 597 as an employer in 3 distinct federal employment cases between 2003 and 2016.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, and Harassment.
Cases were filed across 1 state (IL).
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 3 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Pipefitters Association Local Union 597 appears in 4 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Porter v. Pipefitters Ass'n Local Union 597 (2016) — Mixed Result. African American members of Pipefitters Association Local Union 597 filed a discrimination lawsuit claiming the union treated them unfairly based on their race. The workers wanted to combine their claims into a group case so multiple people could pursue the dispute together rather than each suing individually. Read the ruling.
Moore v. Pipefitters Ass'n Local Union 597, U.A. (2014) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute between a worker named Moore and Pipefitters Association Local Union 597, a labor union. Moore filed an employment-related lawsuit against the union, though the specific details of what Moore claimed the union did wrong are not provided in the available case information. Read the ruling.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and James M. Ferguson, Intervening v. Pipefitters Association Local Union 597 (2003) — Defendant Win. James Ferguson, a Black pipefitter, sued his union (Pipefitters Association Local Union 597) claiming they failed to protect him from racial harassment by other union members. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, Harassment. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment and Harassment.
Published opinions span Illinois. Illinois 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. Illinois rulings.
Claim Types
States
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 employers with published opinions
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.