Skip to main content

Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

U.S. Supreme CourtDecember 1, 1975No. No. 75-119Cited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
Circuit
Federal Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that section 301 of the LMRA does not confer federal jurisdiction for tortious interference claims against non-signatories of a collective bargaining agreement.

What This Ruling Means

# Kimberly-Clark v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1975) ## What Happened Kimberly-Clark brought a lawsuit claiming tortious interference—essentially arguing that someone wrongfully interfered with their business dealings. The case involved questions about whether federal courts could hear this type of complaint under labor laws, specifically when the defendant was not a party to a union contract. ## What the Court Decided The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case. The justices ruled that federal labor law (specifically Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act) does not give federal courts the power to hear tortious interference claims against parties who did not sign the collective bargaining agreement. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling clarifies the limits of federal labor court jurisdiction. It established that when disputes involve non-union parties, workers and employers may need to pursue claims in different courts or under different laws. The decision helps define which disputes belong in federal labor courts versus state courts, affecting where workers can seek remedies for workplace conflicts.

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

Similar Rulings

Celia G. Zimmerman v. Direct Federal Credit Union and David Breslin
1st CircuitSep 2001
Plaintiff Win
Small ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Ass'n Local 200
9th CircuitJul 2010
Defendant Win
Allison
Ind. Ct. App.Mar 2008
Mixed Result
Combs
N.C. Ct. App.Mar 2010

<bold>1. Employer and Employee — wrongful discharge</bold> <bold>— reporting misconduct to management — evidence</bold> <bold>sufficient</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by granting defendants' motion for directed verdict on a claim for the wrongful discharge of an at-will employee where the claim was based upon a retaliatory termination after plaintiff reported to management that the company was withholding negative account balance statements from customers, transferring the monies to a separate account, and continuing to invoice customers in violation of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>14-100</cross_reference> (obtaining property by false pretenses).</block_quote> <bold>2. Employer and Employee — tortious interference</bold><bold>with contract — termination — wrongful purpose</bold><bold>— evidence sufficient</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by granting defendants' motion for directed verdict on a claim for tortious interference with a contract by defendant Smith where plaintiff reported misconduct<page_number>Page 76</page_number> within the company to Smith and was later terminated. Plaintiff forecasted more than a scintilla of evidence that he was terminated for a wrongful purpose.</block_quote> <bold>3. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues</bold><bold>— argument not raised</bold> <block_quote> Plaintiff was deemed to have abandoned an argument on appeal that a corporation ratified the acts of a supervisor in a wrongful termination suit. Plaintiff did not raise the issue in his brief, cite authority, or point to evidence in the record.</block_quote> <bold>4. Unfair Trade Practices — employment dispute</bold><bold>— not an un-fair or deceptive trade practice</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by granting defendants' motion for a directed verdict on plaintiffs claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices after an alleged retaliatory firing. The case involved a simple employment dispute and did not fall with

Plaintiff Win
Robert Steinbuch v. University of Arkansas
Ark.Dec 2019
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.