Skip to main content

Service Employees International Union Local 32bj v. Preeminent Protective Services Inc.

D.D.C.November 8, 2019No. Civil Action No. 2017-1679
Plaintiff WinPreeminent Protective Services, Inc.$50,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Trevor N. McFadden
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court held the employer (Preeminent) in civil contempt for refusing to comply with arbitration orders and awarded the union approximately $50,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses caused by the employer's deliberate delay tactics.

What This Ruling Means

**Union vs. Security Company Case** This case involved a dispute between Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ and Preeminent Protective Services Inc., a security services company. The union, which represents building service workers including security guards, janitors, and doormen, brought an employment-related legal challenge against the company in federal court in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, the available court records don't provide specific details about what exactly the union was claiming the company did wrong, or what the final outcome of the case was. The case was filed in November 2019, but the resolution and any potential damages awarded are not included in the public summary. **What This Means for Workers:** Even without knowing the specific outcome, this case highlights how unions can take legal action on behalf of their members when they believe an employer has violated employment laws. Union Local 32BJ is known for advocating for fair wages, benefits, and working conditions for service workers. When workers are union members, they have the backing of their union's legal resources to challenge potentially illegal employer practices, which individual workers might not be able to afford to fight on their own.

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.