Skip to main content

Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union 58, Ibew v. Gary's Electric Service Company

6th CircuitAugust 18, 2003No. 01-1864Cited 156 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Batchelder, Moore, Clay
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

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of a contempt petition against the corporate owner Pipia and remanded for additional proceedings, finding that corporate officers can be held in contempt even if not named as original defendants when they exercise control over a corporation's actions.

What This Ruling Means

**Case Summary: Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund v. Gary's Electric Service Company** This case involved a dispute over unpaid pension contributions. The Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund sued Gary's Electric Service Company for failing to make required payments to workers' pension funds. The company apparently ignored court orders to pay what it owed. When the company continued to refuse payment, the pension fund asked the court to hold the company's owner, Mr. Pipia, in contempt of court. The lower court said no, ruling that Pipia couldn't be held in contempt because he wasn't originally named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The appeals court disagreed and sent the case back to the lower court for another look. The appeals court ruled that corporate officers and owners can be held in contempt of court orders even if they weren't named in the original lawsuit, as long as they have control over the company's actions. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling strengthens workers' ability to collect money owed to them by employers. When companies try to dodge court orders by hiding behind corporate structure, courts can still hold the people actually running the company accountable. This makes it harder for employers to escape their obligations to pay into pension funds and other worker benefits.

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.