The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101-15, prohibits a district court from enjoining the arbitration of a labor dispute. Further, the cost of proceeding in arbitration and delaying the court's determination whether arbitration is appropriate, is not "irreparable injury."

Where plaintiff was unable after good faith effort to find a local attorney willing to represent him, district court erred in reducing his hourly rate claimed by his Chicago counsel as higher than average in the Southern Illinois community. Current rates or past rates with interest are appropriate. Plaintiff's attorneys were entitled to pursue this appeal in their own names.

The 1992 Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act directed the Social Security Commissioner to assign retired miners to companies responsible to pay their retirement premiums by October 1, 1993. Initial assignments made after that date are still valid, however. Determination that retirees assigned to defendant coal operators should have been in the "unassigned" category is reversed.

After 12 years of paying disability benefits for plaintiff's emotional problems, plan administrator concluded plaintiff was capable of working. On appeal from summary judgment upholding the determination, court notes, first, that absent any ambiguous language concerning vesting, the court applies language of the plan in effect when the benefits decision is made. Administrator's decision to deny benefits based on a single doctor's assessment does not survive even the deferential "arbitrary and capricious" standard, however, where neither the doctor nor the administrator explained his conclusion contrary to that of numerous other experts. Because plaintiff's benefits would have continued, absent the arbitrary and capricious conduct of the plan administrator, court will order retroactive reinstatement of plaintiff's benefits. Administrator may, of course, perform a new review of plaintiff's eligibility for benefits.

Board ordered election for 113 workers in a bargaining unit despite employer's intention to move and expand to force of 300. Board's determination that the workforce constituted a "substantial and representative complement" of the reasonably foreseeable future workforce is upheld, where the proposed new plant was just 1.5 miles away and the nature of the work would be the same. Bargaining order affirmed.

District court correctly dismissed a Title VII claim that challenged the DEA's manner and method of investigating claims that plaintiffs had used offensive language while conducting a training seminar. Summary judgment on their retaliation claim was appropriate where there was no evidence that DEA's reasons for terminating or transferring plaintiffs – the original complaint offensive language, the results of the investigation, and a harassment suit filed by female seminar attendees – was pretextual.