6th Cir. Published Decisions for Week of Jan. 28, 2008

PUBLISHED

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0047p.06	Tullis v. UMB Bank     Northern District of Ohio at Toledo MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This appeal raises the question of whether two physicians can sue to recover losses from a bank that allegedly failed to notify them of fraudulent activities affecting their ERISA-governed pension plans. The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that the two physicians did not have standing to bring their breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA because they sought individual damages – and not, as it deemed necessary, damages for the plan as a whole – from the defendant bank. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue in this appeal that an indemnity agreement between the Defendant and the ERISA-plan administrators contravenes 29 U.S.C. § 1110(a) by impermissibly shielding a fiduciary from liability. Finally, the defendant has filed a cross-appeal, contending that the District Court erred by dismissing, without prejudice instead of with prejudice, the plaintiffs’ improperly pled claims under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. We hold that the plain language and intent of ERISA permits an individual plan participant to seek recovery of losses due to a fiduciary breach. Because we hold that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2), thereby permitting the case to proceed to the merits, we pretermit resolution of both the plaintiffs’ argument that the Master Trust Agreement contravenes 29 U.S.C. § 1110(a) and the defendant’s cross-appeal that the District Court erred by failing to dismiss the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act claims with prejudice.
08a0048p.06	Dolan v. USA     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville BERTELSMAN, District Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant, Thomas A. Dolan, appeals from the dismissal of tort claims against the United States and Bivens and common law conspiracy claims against individual defendants, Guy Blackwell, Randall Kizer, and Bruce Poston. The district court filed a memorandum opinion which may be found at 2007 WL 784351. After careful review, we AFFIRM.
08a0049p.06	Watson Wyatt & Co v. SBC Holdings Inc     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit BERTELSMAN, District Judge. Watson Wyatt & Company (“Watson Wyatt”) appeals the district court’s order denying in part its petition to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4. Because we find that the arbitration provision is broadly written to include claims arising from events that occurred before the execution of the arbitration agreement, we REVERSE.
08a0050p.06	UAW v. NLRB     National Labor Relations Board JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioners International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO (“the Union”), and individual Leo Andre Ahern seek review of the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) decision1 finding that Ogihara America Corporation (“the Company”) did not violate section 8(a)(1), (3) and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 158,2 by discharging petitioner Ahern. Specifically, petitioners challenge the Board’s determinations that: (1) employee Ahern lost the protection of the Act through his deliberate falsification; (2) the company met its burden of showing that it would have discharged Ahern because of his falsification regardless of his union activity; and (3) petitioners did not meet their burden of establishing that Ahern’s discharge was related to his board testimony. For the following reasons, we deny the petition for review and enforce the Board’s order.
08a0051p.06	USA v. Vowell & USA v. Pratt     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis CRIMINAL
08a0052p.06	Wilson v. Parker     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington HABEAS CORPUS
08a0053p.06	Royal Ins Co v. Orient Overseas     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) and its cargo insurer, Royal Insurance Co. of America (“Royal”) (collectively, “Appellants”), brought this action against Defendant-Appellee Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. (“OOCL,” or “Appellee”), an ocean carrier, for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage. OOCL impleaded Third-Party Defendants-Appellees M/V Canmar Pride, the carrying vessel; CP Ships (UK) Ltd.; CPS No. 3 Ltd.; and CPS No. 5 Ltd. (collectively, “Third-Party Appellees”). On September 29, 2005, the district court granted partial summary judgment for OOCL and Third-Party Appellees, ruling that Appellants’ claims were subject to the $500-perpackage liability limitation prescribed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 U.S.C. § 30701 et seq. Both the district court and this court authorized an interlocutory appeal of that ruling, and Appellants now argue that the district court’s ruling should be reversed. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
08a0054p.06	Demjanjuk v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0055p.06	USA v. Davis     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville CRIMINAL
08a0056p.06	Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Charles D. Mickey appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 37.2101 et seq. Mickey’s lawsuit advances two claims: (1) that Zeidler Tool & Die Company (“Zeidler”), his employer, and Harold DeForge, the sole owner of Zeidler, discriminated against him on the basis of age in reducing his salary and benefits, and in terminating him; and (2) that Zeidler terminated him in retaliation for filing a charge of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The district court held that Mickey failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, finding that Mickey R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Charles D. Mickey appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 37.2101 et seq. Mickey’s lawsuit advances two claims: (1) that Zeidler Tool & Die Company (“Zeidler”), his employer, and Harold DeForge, the sole owner of Zeidler, discriminated against him on the basis of age in reducing his salary and benefits, and in terminating him; and (2) that Zeidler terminated him in retaliation for filing a charge of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The district court held that Mickey failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, finding that Mickey
08a0057p.06	NLRB v. Intl Brotherhood     National Labor Relations Board
08a0058p.06	Al-Najar v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0059p.06	Vasquez Salazar v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0060p.06	Amadasu v. Christ Hosp     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Darlington Amadasu, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his employment discrimination and civil rights action filed pursuant to Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d & 2000e; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-213; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986; and state law. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. The panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

 

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0082n.06	Parrott v. Corley     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0083n.06	Conley v. Cty Findlay     Northern District of Ohio at Toledo
08a0084n.06	Brown v. USA     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0085n.06	Pendleton v. Over The Top     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0086n.06	Simon v. Cook     Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington
08a0087n.06	Maloof v. BT Commercial Corp     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

Comments

[employment discrimination of african american men]

But there's a plus side to this. Students in my labor and employment law classes aren't there because they think they "have to" take the class for the bar. Presumably, they take my classes in many to most cases because they think they actually might be interested in the subject, and/ or because they like me or think they might like me as a prof. Now, maybe some students will change those opinions during the semester, and I'm sure some sign up because they want a class that meets at X time on X day to fit...