Skip to main content

Parsons v. Board of Trustees of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust

S.D. W. Va.April 20, 2020No. 2:20-cv-00132
Plaintiff WinRupert Construction Company$50,065.15 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
default judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Plaintiffs obtained default judgment against Rupert Construction Company for $50,065.15 in delinquent union pension and health plan contributions under the LMRA. A subsequent motion to reopen judgment and submit additional evidence was denied.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** James Parsons and the Board of Trustees of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust sued Rupert Construction Company for failing to pay required contributions to union pension and health plans. Under federal labor law, employers must make these payments on behalf of their union workers. Rupert Construction apparently failed to pay $50,065.15 in contributions it owed to the workers' benefit funds. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled in favor of Parsons and the pension trust. Because Rupert Construction didn't respond to the lawsuit or defend itself in court, the judge issued a "default judgment" - essentially an automatic win for the workers. The company was ordered to pay the full $50,065.15 in missing contributions. When Rupert Construction later tried to reopen the case and present evidence, the court denied their request. **What This Means for Workers** This case shows that courts will enforce employers' legal obligations to contribute to union benefit plans. When companies try to skip these payments, workers and their pension trustees can successfully sue to recover the money. The ruling reinforces that employee benefits aren't optional - they're legally required contributions that workers have earned through their labor.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.