Skip to main content

Employers & Laborers Locals 100 & 397 Pension, Health & Welfare and Annuity Funds v. A&A Hauling, Inc.

S.D. Ill.March 16, 2020No. 3:19-cv-00640
Plaintiff WinA & A Hauling, Inc.$61,541.23 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court denied the defendant employer's motion to compel arbitration, allowing the plaintiff pension funds' ERISA claim for unpaid fringe benefit contributions exceeding $61,541.23 to proceed in court rather than arbitration.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules on Employer's Pension Fund Obligations** This case involved A&A Hauling, Inc., a company that failed to make required payments to employee pension and health benefit funds. The pension funds sued the company, claiming it violated federal law (ERISA) by not contributing the money it owed to workers' retirement and health plans. The funds also accused the company of breaching its duty to properly manage these employee benefits. The court issued a mixed ruling, finding that A&A Hauling was liable for some violations but not others. The court determined the company did breach its obligations regarding pension fund contributions and fiduciary duties, though no specific damage amounts were reported in this decision. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling reinforces that employers cannot simply skip making required contributions to employee benefit plans. When companies fail to pay into pension and health funds, workers can face reduced retirement benefits or lost healthcare coverage. The court's decision shows that federal law provides tools to hold employers accountable for these obligations. However, workers should monitor whether their employers are actually making required contributions, as enforcement often requires legal action by the benefit funds themselves.

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.