Skip to main content

Andrea Doreen Ltd. v. Building Material Local Union 282

E.D.N.Y.January 27, 2004No. CIV.A. 98-4838-WGYCited 11 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
William G. Young
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.

Outcome

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Local 282 and the Trustees, dismissing Doreen's RICO claims. The court found insufficient evidence of a pattern of racketeering activity or extortion, and concluded that Doreen's refusal to pay lawful fringe benefit contributions does not support a RICO claim.

What This Ruling Means

**Union Wins Court Battle Over Benefit Contributions** Andrea Doreen Ltd., a company, sued Building Material Local Union 282, claiming the union was illegally extorting money through racketeering, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The company argued that the union's demands for fringe benefit payments (money for worker benefits like health insurance and pensions) were criminal activities. The court sided completely with the union, throwing out all of the company's claims. The judge found that Doreen provided no real evidence that the union engaged in a pattern of criminal behavior or extortion. Instead, the court determined that the union was simply trying to collect legally required benefit contributions that the company owed its workers. The judge ruled that a company's refusal to pay these lawful contributions cannot form the basis for a racketeering lawsuit. This decision is important for workers because it protects unions' ability to enforce benefit agreements without facing frivolous criminal accusations. It confirms that when employers are required to contribute to worker benefit funds, unions have the right to pursue those payments through normal legal channels. The ruling helps ensure that workers don't lose out on benefits they've earned simply because their employers don't want to pay what they legally owe.

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.