Skip to main content

Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Tan Facility Maintenance, Inc.

D.D.C.July 10, 2020No. Civil Action No. 2019-3758
Plaintiff WinTan Facility Maintenance, Inc.$51,939.2 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Rudolph Contreras
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
default judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Tan Facility Maintenance, Inc., finding the defendant liable for failing to make required ERISA pension fund contributions. The court awarded damages totaling $51,939.20, including unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.

What This Ruling Means

**The Dispute** This case involved a disagreement between the Service Employees International Union's pension fund and Tan Facility Maintenance, Inc. The union pension fund likely sued the company over unpaid contributions to worker retirement benefits. Facility maintenance companies often employ union workers who are entitled to pension contributions as part of their employment agreements. **The Court's Decision** The case was decided by the DC Circuit Court on July 10, 2020. However, the specific details of how the court ruled are not available from the public records, so it's unclear whether the union pension fund won or lost their case against the company. **What This Means for Workers** Cases like this highlight the ongoing battles over employee benefits, particularly retirement security. When employers fail to make required pension contributions, it directly threatens workers' future financial security. Union pension funds regularly take legal action to ensure companies fulfill their obligations to contribute to worker retirement plans. For employees in unionized workplaces, these lawsuits serve as an important protection mechanism, helping ensure that promised retirement benefits are actually funded and available when workers need them.

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.