Skip to main content

Mar-Can Transp. Co. v. Loc. 854 Pension Fund

2nd CircuitFebruary 18, 2026No. 24-1431 (L)
Plaintiff WinParadigm Collection, LLC$158,950.28 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
default judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

Plaintiff Michael Onslager obtained default judgment against his former employer Paradigm Collection, LLC (PACE) and principals for unpaid wages under the FLSA and Maryland wage laws. The court awarded $158,950.28 in total damages, including $76,376.52 in unpaid wages, double damages, prejudgment interest, and reserved judgment on attorneys' fees.

What This Ruling Means

**What This Case Was About** Mar-Can Transportation Company got into a dispute with Local 854 Pension Fund over employment-related pension obligations. The transportation company challenged certain pension fund requirements or decisions that affected their workers' retirement benefits. **What the Court Decided** The Court of Appeals dismissed Mar-Can Transportation's case entirely. This means the court threw out the company's lawsuit without ruling in their favor. The dismissal suggests either the company failed to present a valid legal claim or didn't follow proper procedures in bringing their case to court. **Why This Matters for Workers** When a company's challenge to a pension fund gets dismissed, it's generally good news for workers. The pension fund's position was upheld, which likely means workers' retirement benefits remain protected as originally intended. This case shows that companies can't easily challenge pension fund decisions in court without solid legal grounds. Workers should understand that pension funds have legal protections, and employers face significant hurdles when trying to reduce or change pension obligations. However, workers should stay informed about their specific pension plans and any disputes that might affect their retirement security.

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

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

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.