Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Anthony Henry v. Laborers Local 1191

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 5, 2014No. Docket 145631 and 145632Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partZahra, J.

Though I join the majority’s opinion in Parts I, II, 111(A), (C), and (D), and IV(B), I write separately to dissent from Parts III(B) and IV(A) and the outcome of the case. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the *298Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act1 does not preempt plaintiffs’ Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA)2 claims. But I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)3 does not preempt plaintiffs’ WPA claims. I conclude that plaintiffs’ WPA claims are arguably subject to the NLRA because plaintiffs’ reporting of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API