Sixth Circuit: Adverse Decision Against Union does not stop Retirees from Bringing Action on Same Grounds
1 min read
Nov 20, 2012
In the recent decision in Amos v. PPG Indus. Inc., No. 10-3319 (6th Cir., November 1, 2012), an employer reduced health care benefits of employees represented by unions. The unions brought a lawsuit in district court on behalf of the employees and alleged the reduction in benefits constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement as the health care benefits of retirees were vested and could not be reduced.
The District Court held that the retirees’ health benefits were not vested and the Third Circuit affirmed. The retirees in their individual capacity simultaneously had filed a class action lawsuit against the employer on the same grounds as the unions’ lawsuit (i.e. benefits were vested and not subject to change). The employer moved for summary judgment in the retirees’ lawsuit on the grounds that they were collaterally stopped from brining their case, and the District Court agreed granting summary judgment.
The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that as the retirees were not parties to the unions’ lawsuit, they were not estopped from bringing their lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit found that the six exceptions to the rule against nonparty preclusion did not apply here. Specifically, the court held that there was not a pre-existing substantive legal relationship between the parties as the retirees were not members of the union at the time of the judgment in the unions’ lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit found that as the retirees had not provided their assent to be represented by the unions and no “special procedures” had been taken by the District Court in the unions’ lawsuit to protect the retirees’ interests in that action, there was not an understanding by the parties that the unions’ lawsuit was brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the retirees and the retirees were not bound by that decision.
Based on this case, employers subject to a lawsuit brought by an employee union should seek to join or take some action to protect the interest of all potentially related plaintiffs, including employees and retirees who may have an interest in the action.
Featured Insights

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers

In The News
Jun 26, 2026
Brian McGrath Discusses Far-Reaching Impact of a NY Foreclosure Ruling on Mortgage Industry



