Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Injunction Against Plant Closure Affirmed, and Civil Rights and Environmental Matters

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on July 08, 2010 1:31 PM

District Lodge 26 v. United Techs. Corp., No. 10-0702, involved an action claiming that defendant's announced plans to close two facilities in Connecticut and move the work performed at those facilities outside the State violated the collective bargaining agreement between the company and the plaintiff union.  The court of appeals affirmed a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs, on the grounds that 1) the district court did not err in finding that defendant's actions did not constitute "every reasonable effort" to preserve work within the bargaining unit; and 2) the district court did not err in finding that the Closure Plan violated defendant's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Natural Resources Def. Coun. v. US Dept. of Agric., No. 09-2021, concerned an action claiming that the Department of Agriculture failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Plant Protection Act when it adopted new regulations for the importation of unmanufactured wood packaging material into the United States.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants, holding that defendants considered all reasonable alternatives to the proposed rule, and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in adopting a rule providing for either heat treatment or fumigation with methyl bromide of the wood material prior to importation.

Ruston v. Town Bd., No. 09-4480, involved a "class of one" equal protection action by property owners, who were denied sewer hookups for their proposed subdivision, against the Village of Skaneateles, the Town Board, and the Town Planning Board (and individual members of the Boards).  The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants, on the ground that plaintiffs failed to allege specific examples of the Town's proceedings, let alone applications that were made by persons similarly situated, and thus failed to make out an Equal Protection claim.

Related Resources

Find a Lawyer

More Options