Skip to main content
Skip to main content

Rieth-Riley Constr. Co. v. NLRB

6th CircuitNovember 26, 2025No. 23-1946

Case Details

Judge(s)
Karen Nelson Moore; R. Guy Cole, Jr.; Andre B. Mathis
Status
Unpublished
Procedural Posture
appeal
Circuit
6th Circuit

Related Laws

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The NLRB prevailed in its petition for civil contempt enforcement. The court found Rieth-Riley Construction violated the enforcement order by withholding responsive information from June 16, 2022 to present, granting the Board's motion to adjudicate civil contempt in part.

What This Ruling Means

**Construction Company Labor Dispute Remains Unclear** This case involved Rieth-Riley Construction Company and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that enforces workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively. The specific details of what sparked this dispute are not clear from the available information, but it likely involved disagreements over workers' union activities or labor practices at the construction company. **Court Decision** The outcome of this case cannot be determined from the limited information available. The case was heard by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in late November 2025, but the court's final ruling is not yet known. **What This Means for Workers** Without knowing the specific outcome, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on workers. However, cases involving the NLRB typically center on fundamental workplace rights like forming unions, collective bargaining, or protection from retaliation for union activities. Construction workers and others should stay informed about how this case develops, as NLRB decisions often set important precedents for worker protections across industries. Workers always have the right to organize and should understand their protections under federal labor law.

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

Similar Rulings

People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win
Sandra Cortez v. Trans Union
3rd CircuitAug 2010
Plaintiff Win
Roby v. McKesson Corp.
Cal. SupremeNov 2009
Plaintiff Win

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.