Precision Concrete
3 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2003–2004)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Precision Concrete as an employer in 3 distinct federal employment cases between 2003 and 2004.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination.
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.
About this employer
Precision Concrete appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Precision Concrete v. National Labor Relations Board (2004) — Plaintiff Win. Precision Concrete faced a decision from the National Labor Relations Board that required the company to reinstate an employee. The NLRB's order was based on a complaint involving a t-shirt incident that the agency considered workplace retaliation. Read the ruling.
Precision Concrete v. National Labor Relations Board (2003) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute between Precision Concrete and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that enforces workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively. Read the ruling.
Precision Concrete v. National Labor Relations Board (2003) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute over whether a worker who was fired could get their job back. The worker claimed they were illegally fired for union-related activities, specifically an incident involving wearing a t-shirt. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation, Discrimination, Wrongful Termination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Discrimination and Wrongful Termination.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: NLRA (29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169) — The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects the rights of employees to organize, form or join labor unions, bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. See the NLRA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. NLRA.
These published opinions sit within the construction sector, where OSHA retaliation, prevailing-wage disputes, and joint-employer issues are common.
Claim Types
Related Laws
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 Construction 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.