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

Brown claimed that he injured his shoulder while paving a road for his employer Ajax Paving, and sought workers’ compensation. Ajax introduced medical testimony suggesting that the injury occurred outside of work. While the case remained pending before the Michigan administrative agency, Brown and Ajax settled. Brown, however, thought that Ajax had introduced false medical testimony and that it had done the same to other employees, and sued Ajax and its insurers, claims administrators and the doctor, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Under the Act, Brown must show that illegal racketeering activities have “injured [him] in his business or property.” The Sixth Circuit has held that “loss or diminution of benefits the plaintiff expects to receive under a workers’ compensation scheme does not constitute an injury to ‘business or property’ under RICO.” View "Brown v. Ajax Paving Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee “because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to [the Act],” 29 U.S.C. 1140. Sexton made a one-time unsolicited internal complaint to his employer about alleged violations of the ERISA, with respect to seating employees on the company’s board of directors. About six months later, the company fired Sexton from his job as a general manager. Sexton sued in Michigan state court for violating the state Whistleblower Protection Act and for breaching his employment contract. The company invoked complete preemption under ERISA and removed the case to federal court. Sexton did not challenge the company’s removal of the case or its use of complete preemption. The district court granted the company summary judgment on the ERISA claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over Sexton’s breach-of-contract claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Sexton’s complaint did not amount to “giv[ing] information ... in any inquiry” under ERISA. View "Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc." on Justia Law

Pontiac has experienced significant economic difficulties. In 2011 Michigan’s Governor appointed Schimmel as Pontiac’s emergency manager under then-existing law (Public Act 4), in 2011, Schimmel modified the collective bargaining agreements of retired city employees and severance benefits, including pension benefits, for retirees not covered by collective bargaining agreements. Retired employees sued under the Contracts Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Bankruptcy Clause. The district court denied an injunction. In 2013, the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for expedited consideration of state law issues. Michigan voters later rejected Public Act 4 by referendum. Following rehearing, en banc, the Sixth Circuit again vacated and remanded for consideration of whether, under section 903(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, Public Act 4 prescribed a method of composition of indebtedness that binds the retirees without their consent and, if so, whether principles of state sovereignty preclude application of section 903(1) in this case; whether the emergency manager’s orders were legislative acts under the Contract Clause; whether the reductions and eliminations of health care benefits were “necessary and reasonable” under the Contract Clause; whether the retirees’ procedural due process claim is viable; and, assuming the Due Process Clause’s procedural protections apply, whether the collective bargaining agreements, considered in their entireties, establish protected property rights. View "City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass'n v. Schimmel" on Justia Law

After losing her job as an appraiser for St. Joseph County, Trayling filed a grievance with her union and a discrimination charge with the Michigan Civil Rights Department. The union refused to pursue the grievance because the collective bargaining agreement’s election-of-remedies clause prohibits use of the internal grievance process and an external process simultaneously. Trayling sued the county for age and disability discrimination, and sued the union and the county for implementing an allegedly unlawful election-of-remedies rule. The district court held that the election-of-remedies rule violated federal law. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court’s order granting partial summary judgment did not amount to a final decision; it did not even fully resolve the election-of-remedies claim (damages remain undecided), much less the whole case. An exception to the finality requirement, 28 U.S.C. 1292(a), does not apply because the order did not involve an injunction. View "Trayling v. St. Joseph Cnty. Emp'rs Chapter" on Justia Law

In 2003 Harris was hired as a resale buyer at Ford. Throughout her employment Harris suffered from IBS, an illness that causes fecal incontinence. On bad days, Harris was unable to drive to work or stand up from her desk without soiling herself. Harris began to take intermittent FMLA leave. Her absences started to affect her job performance. In 2005 Harris’s then-supervisor allowed her to work on a flex-time telecommuting schedule on a trial basis. The supervisor deemed the trial unsuccessful. Although her next supervisor did not approve remote work, Harris worked from home on an informal basis. The days that she stayed home were marked as absences. When Harris worked nights and weekends, she made mistakes and missed deadlines because she lacked access to suppliers. After Ford declined her request for a formal telecommuting arrangement, Harris complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Harris was terminated in 2009 and the EEOC sued, claiming that Ford discriminated against Harris on the basis of disability and retaliated against her for filing a charge with the EEOC. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ford. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding find evidence that created a genuine dispute as to whether Harris was qualified to work as a resale buyer and whether she was terminated in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge.View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs worked until 2006, when the plant closed, and retired under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA); that provided that the employer would provide health insurance, either through a self-insured plan or under a group insurance policy and identified the employer’s contribution to the premium. The CBAs provided that the coverage an employee had at the time of retirement or termination at age 65 or older other than a discharge for cause “shall be continued thereafter provided that suitable arrangements for such continuation[] can be made… In the event… benefits … [are] not practicable … the Company in agreement with the Union will provide new benefits and/or coverages as closely related as possible and of equivalent value." In 2011 TRW (the employer’s successor) stated that it would discontinue group health care coverage beginning in 2012, but would be providing “Health Reimbursement Accounts” (HRAs) and would make a one-time contribution of $15,000 for each eligible retiree and eligible spouse in 2012, and in 2013, would provide a $4,800 credit to the HRAs for each eligible party. The HRAs shifted risk, and potentially costs, to plaintiffs. TRW did not commit to funding the HRAs beyond 2013. Plaintiffs sued, claiming that the change breached the CBAs, in violation of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. The district court certified a class and granted summary judgment, ruling that the CBAs established a commitment to lifetime health care benefits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed View "United Steel, Paper, Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union v. Kelsey-Hayes Co." on Justia Law

Pierson, a Plant Facilities Manager at QG with 39 years of experience in printing and seven years with QG, was terminated after the CEO announced a comprehensive company-wide cost-cutting initiative. Pierson, then 62 years old, had never received a negative performance evaluation and was never disciplined, reprimanded, or warned about performance deficiencies. After he was fired, his job duties were assumed by a 47-year-old employee engaged in energy-procurement and capital projects management functions at another facility. The district court entered summary judgment for QG. The Sixth Circuit vacated, finding that the record established a genuine factual dispute regarding whether Pierson’s position was eliminated or whether he was simply replaced by a younger individual. View "Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp." on Justia Law

Some of Kaplan’s students obtain financial aid through the U.S. Department of Education. Some Kaplan employees have access to those students’ financial information. About 10 years ago, Kaplan discovered that some financial-aid officers had stolen students’ payments and that some of its executives had engaged in self-dealing, using relatives as vendors. Kaplan implemented measures to prevent abuses, including credit checks on applicants for senior-executive positions and positions with access to company financials, cash, or access to student financial-aid information. Reports include whether: an applicant has ever filed for bankruptcy, is delinquent on child-support, has any garnishments, has outstanding judgments exceeding $2,000, or has a social-security number inconsistent with what the credit bureau has on file. The report does not note the applicant’s race. When the EEOC sued Kaplan, alleging disparate impact on African-Americans, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), (a)(2), (k), EEOC relied on statistical data compiled by Murphy, who holds a doctorate in industrial and organizational psychology. The district court excluded Murphy’s testimony as unreliable. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that the EEOC uses the same criteria for hiring. EEOC presented no evidence that Murphy’s methodology, which involved Murphy looking at copies of drivers’ licenses to determine race, satisfied any of the factors that courts consider in determining reliability under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Murphy himself admitted his sample was not representative of Kaplan’s applicant pool as a whole. View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Kaplan Higher Educ. Corp." on Justia Law

The Union sought a declaratory judgment to enforce a settlement agreement it had entered into with UPS in 2010 to resolve a labor dispute. UPS maintained that any allegation of failure to abide by the agreement fell within a broad arbitration clause in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. The district court agreed and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, but affirmed dismissal based on the language of the CBA, which provides that “any controversy, complaint, misunderstanding or dispute” that concerns “interpretation, application or observance” of the CBA “shall be handled” in accordance with the CBA’s grievance procedures. The parties agreed that the alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement constituted a violation of the CBA. View "Teamsters Local Union 480 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

From 2004 to 2009, Russell worked at Citicorp’s Florence, Kentucky call center. He had signed a standard contract to arbitrate any disputes with the company. The agreement covered individual claims but not class actions. In 2012, Russell filed a class action against the company, claiming that the company did not pay employees for time spent logging into and out of their computers at the beginning and end of each workday. Citicorp did not seek arbitration. In 2012, with the lawsuit still in progress, Russell applied to work again at Citicorp’s call center and was rehired. Citicorp had updated its arbitration contract to cover class claims as well as individual ones. Russell signed the new contract and began work in the call center. Russell did not consult with his lawyers before signing the new contract. About a month later, Citicorp’s outside attorneys learned that he had been rehired and sought to compel Russell to arbitrate the class action, which by then had begun discovery. The district court held that the new arbitration agreement did not cover lawsuits commenced before the agreement was signed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Russell v. Citigroup, Inc." on Justia Law