Employers Association, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
803 F. Supp. 1558 (1992)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Longstanding federal labor law permitted employers to hire permanent replacement workers during employee strikes. However, in 1991, to address concerns about strike-related violence and misconduct, the Minnesota state legislature enacted the Striker Replacement Law, which made it an unfair labor practice and an unlawful act for an employer to hire or threaten to hire permanent replacement workers during a lockout of employees or during an employee strike. Employers Association, Inc. (the employers) (plaintiff), an organization of more than 1,250 Minnesota employers, brought an action in federal district court against the United Steelworkers of America (the union) (defendant), the labor union that represented many of the employers’ workers and bargained with the employers on behalf of those workers. The employers filed a summary-judgment motion seeking a declaratory judgment that the Striker Replacement Law was preempted by federal labor law and thus violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The union moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction because there had been no actual strike, and therefore, there was no justiciable case or controversy between the parties. The district court considered the parties’ arguments and issued a decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rosenbaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
