Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2010, plaintiff started work at defendant’s Murfreesboro plant and was informed about the company’s sexual harassment policy. Plaintiff observed Leonard “come up behind” another man, “grab[] him in the butt,” and then sniff his finger. Twice, Leonard came up behind plaintiff and touched him inappropriately; both times plaintiff warned him. A month later, Leonard came up behind him again, “grabbed [him] by [the] hips and started hunching on [him]” so that Leonard’s “privates” were “up against [Plaintiff’s] tail.” Plaintiff confronted Leonard, then reported the incident. Although there had been other incidents, Leonard was suspended for two days and given a form, stating, “No contact with any employees that would be interpreted as sexual harassment.” Plaintiff did not return to work. He suffered anxiety attacks. His short-term disability insurance ran out. Plaintiff’s licensed clinical social worker diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder. Leonard was fired after he admitted in a deposition that he had “mooned” or touched other men in the workplace. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging sexual harassment, wrongful termination, and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and hostile work environment and constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2. The court granted partial summary judgment, rejecting the retaliation and constructive discharge claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict and award of $300,000 on his Title VII claim. View "Smith v. Rock-Tenn Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

From 1983-2005, Moen entered into collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the union. Employees who retired 1983-1996 and their dependents received hospitalization, surgical and medical coverage without cost. If the retirees (or spouses) were over age 65, Moen also reimbursed the full cost of Medicare Part B premiums. After 1996, retirees and dependents received hospitalization, surgical, and medical coverage upon payment of a co-premium frozen at the time of retirement. If over 65, they received Part B premium reimbursements at specified rates. In 2008, Moen shut down its Elyria operations. A “Closure Effects Agreement” provided that health-care coverage “shall continue” for retirees and spouses “under the [final] Collective Bargaining Agreement.” In 2013, Moen decreased benefits in response to “recent Medicare improvements” and the imposition of an excise tax on “Cadillac plans” through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 26 U.S.C. 4980I. Medicare-eligible retirees no longer receive coverage or Part B premium reimbursements; Moen shifted non-Medicare-eligible retirees to a plan that requires higher out-of-pocket payments. The court certified a class of about 200 individuals who had retired from the plant and were not covered by an earlier settlement agreement, then granted the plaintiffs summary judgment in reliance on Sixth Circuit precedent that was subsequently repudiated by the Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit reversed, based on that 2015 decision. View "Gallo v. Moen Inc." on Justia Law

During negotiations, Rubber Associates proposed to the Union that it decrease its contribution rate to the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Employer Pension Fund (governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001) from 62 cents per hour to 30 cents per hour. The Fund’s actuary opined that collecting withdrawal liability would result in a better funding status for the Fund than accepting reduced contributions. Rubber Associates agreed to maintain its previous contribution rate. Negotiations resumed without success. The Union authorized a strike, which lasted for 17 months. After the Union unilaterally disclaimed interest in representing its employees, Rubber Associates was deemed to have withdrawn from the Fund, pursuant to the Multiemployer Pension Protection Amendments Act (MPPAA). The Fund calculated Rubber Associates’ withdrawal liability obligation at $1,713,169, which the arbitrator awarded in full. The Fund sued to enforce the award. Rubber Associates counterclaimed that, because withdrawal from the Fund was union-mandated, its liability should be calculated by an alternate method, making its liability only $312,000. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the counterclaim, declining to recognize a claim under the federal common law of ERISA for equitable relief in the case of union-mandated withdrawals. View "United Food & Commercial Workers v. Rubber Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

Blesedell, employed by Chillicothe Telephone Company since 1996, was terminated in 2012 for falsifying a timecard and impersonating a customer in telephone calls to the company. Blesedell sued the company and his union, asserting a hybrid 29 U.S.C. 185 (section 301)-fair-representation claim. Blesedell also asserted a defamation claim against the company’s human resources manager, based on the manager’s statements to union members and a police officer. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation during the grievance process, and the human resource manager’s statements at issue were true or were protected by a qualified privilege. View "Blesedell v. Chillicothe Telephone Co." on Justia Law

Retirees, dependents of retirees, and the union filed a class action suit against the retirees’ former employer, M&G, after M&G announced that the plaintiffs would be required to make health care contributions. The district court found M&G liable for violating a labor agreement and an employee welfare benefit plan and ordered reinstatement to the versions of the benefits plans they were enrolled in until 2007, to receive health care for life without contributions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. On remand, the Supreme Court directed the court to construe the parties’ agreements using “ordinary principles of contract law.” The Sixth Circuit remanded to the district court because prior factual determinations as to the parties’ agreements were made in the “shadow of Yard-Man,” a Sixth Circuit decision abrogated by the Supreme Court. View "Hobert Tackett v. M&G Polymers USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 194 employees who were terminated by Vanderbilt University on July 1, 2013, sued, claiming violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), 29 U.S.C. 2101, which requires certain employers to provide at least 60 days’ written notice to affected employees before a mass layoff. The plaintiffs’ class is insufficient to constitute a “mass layoff” (of 500 workers during a 30-day period) as defined by WARN; they cited the Act’s aggregation provision, which allows for separate layoffs within a 90-day period to be counted togetherf. They alleged that a second group of Vanderbilt employees was notified on September 17, 2013, that their jobs would be eliminated 60 days later, on November 16. Although they were no longer permitted to report for work, they continued to receive wages and accrue benefits after the notice was given. They were not eligible for state unemployment benefits until November 16, when they no longer received wages and accrued benefits. The Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of Vanderbilt. The employment relationship between Vanderbilt and the September employees did not end until November 16; they suffered an employment loss more than 90 days after the plaintiffs were terminated and thus cannot be counted under the aggregation provision. View "Morton v. Vanderbilt Univ." on Justia Law

Five multi-employer fringe benefit funds of the Plumbers, Pipe Fitters & Mechanical Equipment Service, Local Union 392, sued to collect delinquent employee fringe benefit contributions from B&B, an Ohio commercial plumbing contractor. The Funds were established for the benefit of contractors’ employees who perform work under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated between the Union and the Mechanical Contractors Association as agent for its member employers. During discovery, the Funds were unable to produce a copy of the CBA that was signed by B&B. B&B argued that the Funds had failed to produce proof that B&B’s principal independently signed the CBA, and that B&B had made 10 years of contributions on a voluntary basis. The Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of B&B, concluding as a matter of law that B&B entered written agreements setting out its obligation to contribute as required by the Labor Management Relations Act 302(c)(5)(B) and is bound to pay delinquent contributions that are owed to the Funds in accordance with the terms of the CBA and the trust agreements. View "Bd. of Trs. Local 392 v. B&B Mech. Servs." on Justia Law

Michael worked as a Troy patrol officer since 1987. In 2000-2001 he had partially successful surgeries to remove a non-cancerous brain tumor and returned to the force. In 2007, Michael’s then-wife Jamie found a box of empty steroid vials—some labeled for veterinary use and all belonging to Michael—which she gave to then-Chief of Police, Craft. Michael conducted a two-year campaign to get them back, secretly recording and suing Craft. Michael secretly recorded Jamie during marriage-counseling sessions and family gatherings, and asked the prosecutor to charge Jamie with perjury. The new Chief, Mayer, received reports that Michael had accompanied a cocaine dealer to drug deals. Mayer suspended Michael from active duty pending investigation, but tabled that investigation when Michael needed another brain surgery. After Michael’s surgeon cleared him for work, the city requested a psychological evaluation. A neuropsychologist concluded that Michael “may be a threat to himself and others.” The city placed Michael on unpaid leave. Another neuropsychologist pronounced him fit for duty. A third found him unfit. Two others, who reviewed Michael’s file (but did not examine him), concluded that he could return to work. Michael saw a professor of neuropsychology at the University of Michigan, who concluded that Michael has weak “executive functioning,” and that “[s]afety with use of weapons and high-speed driving would be in question.” Michael kept that report to himself and sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the city, holding that Michael was not qualified for the position of patrol officer. View "Michael v. City of Troy Police Dep't" on Justia Law

Slusher, an orthopedic surgeon and military reservist, worked at Heritage, a small hospital in Shelbyville, Tennessee, through a staffing service, on 30-day assignments beginning on July 20, 2010. Slusher was offered, but did not accept, a permanent position. He agreed to a one-year contract in January 2011, which could be terminated by either party for any reason upon 90 days’ notice or by Heritage, effective immediately, with 90 days’ pay instead of notice. It did not provide for renewal or extension. Heritage knew that he could be called up for deployment. On May 4, 2011, Slusher received orders. Before Slusher’s deployment, Heritage informed him that it had interviewed another physician for the orthopedic surgeon position. Heritage granted Slusher military leave. He reported for active duty on June 10. While he was in Iraq, Heritage informed Slusher that it was nearing a contract with Mosley. Slusher later signed a termination agreement, specifying that his employment would end on October 26. Slusher returned to Heritage, where Mosley had begun working, on October 3, and worked there until October 26, 2011. Slusher filed a complaint with the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. After the Department of Labor closed its investigation, Slusher filed suit, claiming discrimination under and violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 4301-35 and breach of contract. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants on each claim. View "Slusher v. Shelbyville Hosp. Corp." on Justia Law

Waskiewicsz suffers from type-1 diabetes, major depression, and gender identity disorder She worked as a product design engineer for Ford from 1990 until October, 2010, when she suffered “a debilitating emotional breakdown.” In December, after her father found her barricaded in her house, she sought long-term disability benefits under Ford’s Plan, governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. Under the plan: An Active Employee whose employment is terminated . . . shall cease to be eligible for Benefits as of the earlier of: (a) the date the Employee has been notified; or (b) the day prior to the date of such termination (in the case of retroactive terminations) . .... An employee is required to notify the Claim Processor ... if the employee is absent for more than five (5) consecutive Workdays.” She did not give notice within the five-day period and was, apparently, terminated in the interim. UniCare concluded that she did not qualify for benefits. The Sixth Circuit reversed. On remand, Waskiewicz must be given the opportunity to show that her alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the Plan was due to the very disability for which she seeks benefits. View "Waskiewicz v. UniCare Life & Health Ins. Co." on Justia Law