Skip to main content

Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit Programs v. Jenkins

6th CircuitJune 11, 2008No. 07-3641Cited 5 times
Defendant WinDan Ray Construction, Inc.$86,956.43 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Guy, Suhrheinrich, Gibbons
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment against the defendants (Dan-Ray Construction and its principals) for failure to make required ERISA fringe benefit contributions. The court rejected defendants' appeals regarding record-keeping sufficiency, audit accuracy, and attorney fees.

What This Ruling Means

**Ohio Construction Company Ordered to Pay $86,956 in Missing Worker Benefits** This case involved Dan Ray Construction, Inc., which failed to pay required fringe benefits to workers who were part of a union laborers' benefit program. These benefits included things like health insurance and retirement contributions that the company was legally required to make on behalf of its employees under federal law (ERISA). The benefit fund trustees sued the company and its owners to recover the missing payments. The court ruled completely in favor of the workers' benefit fund. Dan Ray Construction was ordered to pay $86,956.43 in unpaid benefits, plus attorney fees. The company tried to appeal by arguing that the record-keeping was insufficient and the audit was inaccurate, but the appeals court rejected these arguments and upheld the original decision. This ruling reinforces that employers cannot avoid paying promised fringe benefits to workers. When companies are required to contribute to employee benefit funds - whether through union contracts or legal requirements - they must follow through on these obligations. Workers can take legal action to recover unpaid benefits, and courts will hold employers accountable for shortchanging employee compensation packages, even the portions that aren't direct wages.

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.