Skip to main content

Orth v. Wisconsin State Employees Union, Council 24

7th CircuitOctober 22, 2008No. 07-2778Cited 24 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Bauer, Posner, Williams
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs (the Orths) under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, finding that the employer violated the collective bargaining agreement by deducting 100% of health insurance premiums from retired employees' sick leave accounts instead of the contractual 10%, and awarded them attorneys' fees.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved retired Wisconsin state employees, the Orths, who discovered their union was incorrectly deducting money from their sick leave accounts to pay for health insurance. When they retired, the union took 100% of their health insurance premiums from their accumulated sick leave benefits. However, their collective bargaining agreement (their union contract) clearly stated that only 10% should be deducted for health insurance costs. **What the Court Decided** The federal appeals court ruled in favor of the retired employees. The court found that the Wisconsin State Employees Union had violated the collective bargaining agreement by taking far more money than allowed. The union was ordered to pay the difference and cover the employees' legal costs. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling reinforces that employers and unions must follow the exact terms written in collective bargaining agreements. When contracts specify particular deduction amounts or benefit calculations, those terms cannot be changed without proper agreement. Workers have the right to challenge violations of their contracts in court, and if they win, they may be able to recover attorney fees. This case shows that even small details in union contracts have legal force and must be honored.

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.