Skip to main content

Anthony Henry v. Laborers Local 1191

MICHMay 5, 2014No. Docket 145631 and 145632Cited 17 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Zahra, Young, Cavanagh, Markman, McCormack, Viviano, Kelly
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

WhistleblowerRetaliationWrongful Termination

Outcome

The Michigan Supreme Court held that plaintiffs' whistleblower claims under the Michigan WPA are not preempted by the NLRA or LMRDA insofar as they involve reporting suspected criminal misconduct to the Department of Labor, but remanded the case because claims regarding improper wages and unsafe working conditions are preempted by the NLRA and must be litigated exclusively before the NLRB.

What This Ruling Means

**Anthony Henry v. Laborers Local 1191 - Michigan Court Ruling** This case involved a dispute between Anthony Henry and his union, Laborers Local 1191, over employment-related issues. Henry filed a lawsuit against the union claiming they had violated employment laws in their dealings with him as a member or employee. The Michigan court dismissed Henry's case entirely. This means the court threw out his claims without awarding him any money or other relief. The court determined that Henry had not presented sufficient evidence to support his employment law claims against the union, or that there were other legal reasons why his case could not proceed. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling shows that winning employment cases against unions can be challenging. Workers need strong evidence and proper legal grounds to successfully sue their own unions. Just having a disagreement or feeling wronged isn't enough - there must be clear violations of specific employment laws. If you're having problems with your union, it's important to document everything carefully and understand that courts require concrete proof of wrongdoing. Workers should also consider using internal union grievance processes before going to court, as this may be required in some situations.

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.