Eric LindstromOf Counsel
Practice: Eric Lindstrom is an advocate for unions, workers, and progressive causes. In his labor practice, Mr. Lindstrom represents unions in organizing campaigns, collective bargaining, impasse, and contract enforcement. Mr. Lindstrom frequently appears in arbitration, before state and national labor agencies, and in litigation and appeals arising out of labor disputes. Mr. Lindstrom also defends employees in layoff, disciplinary, and professional licensing proceedings. Mr. Lindstrom has also litigated high-profile free speech and civil rights cases, drafted legislation, and advises political and activist campaigns.
Mr. Lindstrom began his career as an associate at Langenkamp, Curtis & Price in 2011. In 2013, Mr. Lindstrom moved to Florida and joined the front lines of the labor movement in the Deep South. Mr. Lindstrom quickly became one of the leading union attorneys in Florida and a named-partner with Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica. In 2020, Mr. Lindstrom returned to Sacramento and rejoined Langenkamp, Curtis & Price.
Education: Mr. Lindstrom earned his bachelor’s degree with distinction from Iowa State University in 2007 and earned his law degree cum laude from the University of California Hastings College of Law in 2010. In law school, Mr. Lindstrom was an editor for the Hastings Women’s Law Journal and served an externship for U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker (N.D. Cal.).
Lecturer/Speaker: In addition to speaking about his work at labor conferences, Mr. Lindstrom regularly provides legal updates and trainings to unions throughout northern California.
Attwood v. Clemons, 818 Fed. Appx. 863 (11th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff stated a cause of action under First Amendment by alleging that his state representative blocked him on Twitter and Facebook).
United Faculty of Florida v. University of Florida, 46 FPER ¶ 210 (FL PERC 2020) (university settled an unfair labor practice charge, rescinded unilaterally implemented policy, agreed to bargain over policy going forward, and allowed professors to keep a $2 million research prize).
United Faculty of Florida v. Florida Polytechnic University, 46 FPER ¶ 63 (FL PERC 2019) (university committed an unfair labor practice by eliminating job classifications without bargaining and in retaliation; university was required to reestablish the positions, pay the affected employees backpay, and pay attorney’s fees). In a second case, the University paid $250,000 to settle a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit brought by another faculty member who spoke out against university during the first action. In a third case, the university was ordered to rescind a bogus reprimand issued to another faculty member who testified in the first action.
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1579 v. City of Gainesville, 264 So.3d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (breaking with precedent to decide that a trial court order vacating an arbitration award is appealable; and upholding an arbitrator’s award finding that a bus driver was entitled to use force to defend herself against aggressive passengers).
Orlando Professional Fire Fighters, Local 1365 v. City of Orlando, 45 FPER ¶ 98 (FL PERC 2018) (city committed an unfair labor practice by using the impasse procedure to impose terms that waived bargaining rights).
UNITE HERE, Local 737 v. Walt Disney, FMCS No. 17-54807 (2018) (arbitrator held that a last chance agreement was no longer effective after a break in service; employee reinstated with backpay).
International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 4867 v. Haines City, FMCS No. 16-52166-3 (2016) (arbitrator determined that employees had just cause protections based on limiting language in the employer’s management rights clause).
International Union of Police Associations, Local 6090 v. City of Groveland, 41 FPER ¶ 350 (FL PERC 2015) (union prevailed in proving police chief retaliated against union president; ordering city to reinstate officer with backpay and pay attorney’s fees).
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 824 v. Verizon, 803 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming arbitrator’s authority to broadly construe the union’s grievance, and successfully defending the union’s favorable arbitration decision).