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

In The News
Aug 24, 2026
David Schultz Reviews a Humorous—But Important—FDCPA Procedural Ruling

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
115 Hinshaw Lawyers Recognized in 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch®

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
Hinshaw’s Landmark Tower Client Project Receives 2026 Top Projects Award

Press Release
Aug 19, 2026
Fernando Rivera-Maissonet Elected as HNBA Region II Governor and Board of Governors Member

Employment Law Observer
Aug 17, 2026
Massachusetts’ First Paid Family Medical Leave Act Verdict Yields $4.75 Million Award

Press Release
Aug 13, 2026
Lauren Campisi Recognized as a 2026 BTI Client Service All-Star by BTI Consulting Group

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Aug 13, 2026
How Will Banks Be Impacted by the Proposed Regulation O Amendments?

Press Release
Aug 12, 2026
William Cook Honored With the Distinguished Service Award by the Chicago Bar Association

Webinar
Aug 12, 2026
John Ryan Presents on "Understanding what is Covered Under the TCPA Today"

In The News
Aug 12, 2026
Scott Seaman Analyzes California’s New Pleading Standards for Excess Insurance Policy Claims


