Recently in Employment Law Category

In plaintiff's ERISA case, district court's judgment on the administrative record approving defendant's discontinuance of plaintiff's long-term disability benefits is affirmed as, taking the record as a whole and applying the highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard, defendant's decision appears to have been based on a principled and deliberative reasoning process.     

Read Cox v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 08-2033

Appellate Information

Argued: October 8, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Martin

Counsel

For Appellant:  Troy W. Haney, Haney Law Office, PC, Grand Rapids, Michigan

For Appellee:  Warren Sebastian von Schleicher, Smith, von Schleicher & Associates, Chicago, Illinois

In plaintiff's action against his former employer, seeking indemnification for legal expenses incurred in successfully defending a prior suit brought against him under the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), dismissal of his claim on the ground that it was preempted by federal law is vacated and remanded as Congress did not intend to displace the state-law indemnification rights, if any, of parties found not to have violated the CEA.      

Read Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, No. 08-4557

Appellate Information

Argued: October 8, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Kethledge

Counsel

For Appellant: James G. Vargo, James E. Arnold & Associates, LPA, Columbus, Ohio

For Appellee:  Jeffrey A. Schulman, Wolin Kelter & Rosen, LTD, Chicago, Illinois

District court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' claims for withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, the court's judgment is vacated and remanded for a determination whether the defendant had an obligation to contribute to the fund under applicable labor-management relations law; and 2) district court's judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract is affirmed.     

Read Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund v. Int'l Comfort Prods., LLC, No. 08-5949

Argued: March 10, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 22, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Kethledge

Counsel

For Appellant:  John Joseph Franczyk, Jr., Rosemont, Illinois

For Appellee:  Lee T. Polk, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Chicago, Illinois

District court's judgment affirming a decision denying petitioner's request for social security disability benefits is reversed and remanded because an ALJ failed to give good reasons for discounting the opinions of petitioner's treating physicians in violation of 20 C.F.R. section 404.1527 (d)(2).   

Read Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 08-6270

Appellate Information

Argued: April 4, 2009

Decided and Filed: September 24, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Suhrheinrich

Counsel

For Appellant:  Julie Anne Atkins, Atkins Law Office, Harlan Kentucky

For Appellee: Haila Naoli Kleinman, Holly A. Grimes, Mary Ann Sloan, Social Securoty Administration, Office of General Counsel, John S. Osborn III, Assistant United States Attorney

In plaintiff's gender discrimination action under Title VII against the police department, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded as plaintiff, a patrol officer and a seventeen-year veteran with the department, had arguably superior qualification than the two successful applicants who received the promotions as detectives and produced other probative evidence of gender discrimination.  

Read Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep't, No. 08-1883

Appellate Information

Argued: August 4, 2009

Decided and Filed: September 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Moore

Counsel

For Appellant:  Richard I. Lippitt, Law Office of Richard I. Lippitt, PC of Milford, Michigan

For Appellee:  Karen M. Daley, Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC, of Livonia, Michigan

In plaintiff's case against a benefit plan administrator for denying its claim for benefits under ERISA, district court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) district court did not err in applying the de novo standard of review in concluding that the third-party administrator for the plan rather than defendant made the decision to deny the claim for benefits; 2) district court properly concluded that defendant erred in denying the claim as the court correctly determined that the benefits for which the claimant sought payment did not stem from a loss caused by driving without a license and driving without insurance, for purposes of an exclusionary clause in the plan; 3) district court properly awarded benefits and prejudgment interest to plaintiff; and 4) award of attorney's fees is reversed as the district court erred in weighing the first factor of the five-factor test in favor of a fees award. 

Read Shelby County Health Care Corp. v. Majestic Star Casino, LLC Group Health Benefit Plan, No. 08-6078

Appellate Information

Argued: June 16, 2009

Decided and Filed: September 21, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Clay 

Counsel

For Appellant:  David A. Thornton, Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

For Appellee:  Curtis Henry Goetsch, McCullough & McCullough, PLLC

In plaintiffs' lawsuit against defendants employers brought under LMRA and ERISA, district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment is reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs as a finding of employer intent is not essential or prerequisite to imposition of alter ego status, but is merely one of the relevant factors which the courts can consider.     

Read Tr. of the Detroit Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds v. Indus. Contracting, LLC, No. 08-1457

Argued: March 11, 2009

Decided and Filed: September 17, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Daughtrey

Counsel

For Appellant:  Walter B. Fisher Jr., Fildew Hinks, PLLC, Detroit Michigan

For Appellee:  Steven A. Wright, Steven A. Wright, PC., Shelby Township, Michigan

In an action claiming that defendant terminated plaintiff based on her race, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant had ample evidence of plaintiff's performance problems; 2) no reasonable jury could find that it was "more likely than not" that plaintiff's performance was a pretext for an illegal motive; and 3) plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext on her retaliation claim.

Appellate Information

Argued: June 11, 2009

Decided and Filed: September 8, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Martin

Counsel

For Appellant:

Bryan L. Monaghan, Law Office of Bryan Monaghan, Rochester, MI

For Appellee:

Edward J. Bardelli, Warner, Norcross & Judd LLP, Grand Rapids, MI

In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act action claiming discriminatory termination, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence to indicate that plaintiff's supervisor's allegedly discriminatory mindset resulted in any adverse employment action; and 2) plaintiff was not replaced by another worker and was terminated as part of a reduction in force.

Appellate Information

Argued: May 1, 2009

Decided and Filed: September 4, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Gibbons

Concurrence by Judge Rogers

Counsel

For Appellant:

Richard A. Meier, Law Office, Farmington Hills, MI

For Appellee:

Philip B. Phillips, Foley & Lardner LLP, Detroit, MI