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

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
Key Takeaways from the 2026 MBA Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
SCOTUS Confirms: Federal Courts Retain Power to Affirm or Vacate an Arbitration Decision

In The News
May 13, 2026
Hinshaw Contributes Chapters to “Wrongful-Death and Survival Actions” IICLE Handbook

In The News
May 12, 2026
Hinshaw GC Steve Puiszis Discusses Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in an AI Age

Event
May 12-13, 2026
Mitchel Chargo Speaks on the Rapidly Evolving Cannabis Industry

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 11, 2026
Tennessee Reaches Settlement with Mariner in Multistate UDAAP Enforcement Action

Press Release
May 11, 2026
Ali Degan Elected to the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation

Press Release
May 11, 2026
John Weedon Re-Elected to the Jacksonville Bar Association’s Board of Governors in 2026

Press Release
May 7, 2026
Hinshaw Recognized as a 2026 BTI Associate Satisfaction A-Lister Firm



