Skip to main content

NLRB v. Nico Asphalt Paving, Inc.

2nd CircuitApril 14, 2021No. 20-77(L)
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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Unpublished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

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The NLRB prevailed in enforcing its November 6, 2019 order finding that Nico Asphalt Paving and its alter ego City Wide Paving violated the National Labor Relations Act by failing to recognize and bargain with the union. The court granted the NLRB's petition for enforcement and denied the companies' cross-petition for review.

What This Ruling Means

**NLRB v. Nico Asphalt Paving Case Summary** This case involved the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bringing legal action against Nico Asphalt Paving, Inc., a construction company. The NLRB is the federal agency that enforces workers' rights to organize, join unions, and engage in collective bargaining. When the NLRB files a case against an employer, it typically means the company allegedly violated workers' rights under federal labor law. The specific details of what Nico Asphalt Paving was accused of doing wrong are not available in the court records provided. The outcome of this 2021 case from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is also not specified in the available information. **What This Means for Workers:** NLRB cases are important because they help establish and protect fundamental workplace rights. These cases often involve situations where employers illegally interfere with workers' attempts to organize, retaliate against employees for union activities, or refuse to bargain in good faith with worker representatives. Even when specific details aren't available, NLRB enforcement actions serve as reminders that workers have federally protected rights to organize and that employers can face legal consequences for violating these rights.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

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.