Legal Opinion
J.A. Croson Co. v. J.A. Guy, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 8, 1998No. Nos. 96-2578 and 97-14PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.
JOB TARGETING
The legal dispute in this case centers on Local 189’s use of a job targeting program. Job targeting is a strategy employed nationwide by construction unions, with the cooperation of unionized contractors, in response to declining union membership and the expanding market penetration of nonunion construction. See Northup & White, Subsidizing Contractors to Gain Employment; Construction Union “Job Targeting” (1996), 17 Berkeley J. Employment & Labor L. 62. The aim of job targeting programs is clear: unions want union contractors to bid successfully on construction projects so that…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. LueckSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Livadas v. BradshawSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Darby v. A-Best Products Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2004
- Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n, Local Union No. 33 v. Gene's Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2009
- State ex. rel. Northern Ohio Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Barberton City School District Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- State ex rel. Associated Builders & Contrs. of Cent. Ohio v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010
- Delaney v. International Union Uaw Local No. 94 of John Deere Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2004
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.