Twin Rivers Paper Company, LLC
2 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (2019–2024)
2 trusted published court opinions analyzed; 1 map to 1 distinct case · 1 docket-only case without a recorded end date
What public court records show
In public federal court records, Twin Rivers Paper Company, LLC is named as a defendant in 2 federal cases coded as employment matters between 2019 and 2024.
The most common claims on record were Whistleblower and Retaliation.
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 1 distinct case.
About this employer
Twin Rivers Paper Company, LLC appears in 2 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Bernard Nadeau v. Twin Rivers Paper Company, LLC (2021) — Defendant Win. Bernard Nadeau worked at Twin Rivers Paper Company and claimed he was punished for reporting safety or legal violations—a practice called retaliation. He sued under Maine's whistleblower protection law, which typically shields workers who speak up about wrongdoing. Read the ruling.
Nadeau v. Twin River Paper Company, LLC (2019) — Defendant Win. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Whistleblower, Retaliation. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Whistleblower and Retaliation.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: ADEA (29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634) — The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees and job applicants who are 40 years of age or older from discrimination based on age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, and other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. See the ADEA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. ADEA.
These published opinions sit within the manufacturing sector, where OSHA whistleblower, FMLA, and disability-accommodation claims are most 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 court records naming this party
1 published opinion names this party but is not coded with an employment claim. Some are labor, unemployment or workers’ compensation matters whose claim type was not recorded; others are not employment disputes at all. They are not counted in any figure on this page, and no outcome is shown for them.
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving other employers.
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.