NOTICE: This summary is
designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does
not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation
because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can
change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this
information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you
have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Sixth Circuit Revives Retiree Healthcare Litigation Despite Prior Final Judgment Against Unions Over Same 2001 Modifications
Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit reversed summary
judgment for an employer in a class action lawsuit brought by retirees over
changes in their healthcare. Amos v. PPG
Industries, Inc., No. 10-3319 (6th
Cir. 11-1-12). The employer had
modified the insurance coverage in 2001 by requiring the retirees to contribute
to a portion of the cost. Unions which
had negotiated collective bargaining agreements governing the terms of the
retirees’ health coverage brought suit in federal court in Pittsburgh alleging
that the employer’s modifications breached those bargaining agreements. That lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds
that the insurance benefits had not vested and was affirmed on appeal in
2007. While that lawsuit was still
pending in Pittsburgh, the plaintiffs then filed a class action suit in federal
court in Columbus under ERISA and the LMRA alleging that the insurance benefits
had vested and were not subject to change.
Following the dismissal of the Pittsburgh suit, the employer moved for
summary judgment on the grounds of collateral estoppel: that the lawsuit had
already been litigated and final judgment entered in favor of the employer in
Pennsylvania. The district court here
agreed and entered judgment for the employer.
The Sixth Circuit reversed on the grounds that the Unions did not
represent the plaintiff retirees and, thus, the retirees had not been given an
opportunity to litigate the issue for themselves.
Labels:
collateral estoppel,
retiree pension benefits,
union