LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, HEALTH LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
• Brittingham v. GMC

CIVIL RIGHTS, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, REMEDIES
• Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc.

ERISA, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, OIL & GAS LAW
• Zirnhelt v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co.

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, HEALTH LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
Brittingham v. GMC, No. 06-3114
In a negligence and intentional misconduct case, summary judgment for defendants and denial of a motion to remand the case to state court is vacated and remanded where: 1) there was no federal preemption under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not impose a duty on defendant to conduct pre-employment examinations and disclose information; and 2) the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action since the plaintiff's claims were rooted in state law independent of the CBA. Read more...

CIVIL RIGHTS, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, REMEDIES
Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc., No. 07-5304
Judgment for plaintiffs in an action brought under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs were able to establish their hostile work environment claim; 2) defendant did not establish that they took reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassing behavior; and 3) the award to plaintiffs was not excessive since defendant failed to show that the court's computation was erroneous. Read more...

ERISA, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, OIL & GAS LAW
Zirnhelt v. Michigan Consol. Gas Co., No. 06-2540, 07-1172
In a pension-benefits case, dismissal of plaintiff's benefits claim, fiduciary breach claim, and an award to plaintiff based on defendant's failure to provide her with plan documents in a timely manner are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's allegation that the plan language was ambiguous regarding an age clause could not trump the clear language of the plan; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in a denial of plaintiff's equitable estoppel claim since it can only apply to ambiguous plan provisions; 3) plaintiff's fiduciary breach claim was time barred; 4) the district court was correct in concluding that plaintiff was a participant in the plan and therefore entitled to certain documents; and 5) the court did not abuse its discretion as to the $10,500 penalty for a 424 day delay in producing the documents, since the company had a good faith belief that plaintiff had withdrawn her request for the documents. Read more...