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

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

