Skip to main content

National Labor Relations Board v. C & C Roofing Supply, Inc.

9th CircuitJune 25, 2009No. 08-70335; 08-70335Cited 6 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Hug, Fletcher, Hawkins, Granted, Denied
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit granted the NLRB's petition for enforcement of a consent judgment requiring C & C Roofing Supply to reinstate terminated employees and pay liquidated damages. The court rejected the employer's argument that immigration law prohibited compliance, holding that the employer could comply with the settlement by providing proof of unauthorized status where applicable.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sued C & C Roofing Supply after the company fired workers who were likely involved in union activities or workplace organizing. The company had agreed to a settlement that required them to hire the workers back and pay damages. However, C & C Roofing later refused to follow through on this agreement, claiming they couldn't rehire the workers because of immigration law restrictions. **What the Court Decided** The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the NLRB and ordered C & C Roofing to stick to their original settlement agreement. The court rejected the company's excuse about immigration laws preventing compliance. Instead, the court said the company could meet their obligations by providing documentation about workers' immigration status when relevant, but they still had to pay the agreed-upon damages and make good faith efforts to reinstate eligible employees. **Why This Matters for Workers** This decision protects workers' rights to organize and engage in union activities regardless of their immigration status. Employers cannot use immigration concerns as an excuse to avoid consequences for illegally firing workers who exercise their labor rights. The ruling reinforces that companies must face penalties when they retaliate against workers for organizing.

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.