CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
BRENDAN LYSHE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
YALE R. LEVY; LEVY & ASSOCIATES, LLC; KIRSCHENBAUM, PHILLIPS & LEVY, PC; KRISHNA VELAYUDHAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-4026
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:16-cv-00516—Michael H. Watson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 20, 2017
Before: GUY, SILER, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Yale R. Levy, Levy & Associates, LLC, Kirschenbaum, Phillips & Levy, PC, and Krishna Velayudhan (collectively, “Appellees”) brought a collection action against Brendan Lyshe. Alleging that Appellees’ discovery requests violated state procedural rules, Lyshe brought a claim for relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). For the following reasons, we conclude that Lyshe did not suffer any concrete harm from Appellees’ alleged state procedural violations. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
GLORIA MARSHALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE RAWLINGS COMPANY LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-5614
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:14-cv-00359—Thomas B. Russell, District Judge.
Argued: November 30, 2016
Decided and Filed: April 20, 2017
Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Gloria Marshall appeals the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment for Defendant-Appellee The Rawlings Company. Marshall was an employee of The Rawlings Company. After taking time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., for mental-health problems, which are a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, Marshall was demoted and then fired. Marshall alleges claims of FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, ADA retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted The Rawlings Company’s motion for summary judgment on all four claims. For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment on Marshall’s claims of FMLA interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress, REVERSE the district court’s judgment on the FMLA retaliation and ADA retaliation claims, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ROBERT COLE, JOHN ADAMS, RICHARD S. LANTER (03-73872) and LOIS E. LAST, DAVID REAMER, CHARLES A. SCHMIDT (04-73656), on behalf of themselves and a similarly situated class; INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
MERITOR, INC., fka ArvinMeritor, Inc.; ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.; ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION;
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 06-2224
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
Nos. 03-73872; 04-73656—Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge.
Argued: October 18, 2016
Decided and Filed: April 20, 2017
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GILMAN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
SUPERSEDING OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. The key issue in this case is whether the retired employees of Meritor, Inc. and Meritor’s predecessors have a vested right to lifetime healthcare benefits. In this court’s prior decision in Cole v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 549 F.3d 1064 (6th Cir. 2008), we held that the retirees have such a right. Our decision was controlled by this court’s earlier cases of UAW v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983), Yolton v. El Paso Tenn. Pipeline Co., 435 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2006), and Noe v. PolyOne Corp., 520 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2008).

Meritor filed a timely petition to rehear. The petition was held in abeyance for eight years while the parties attempted to settle their dispute, initially on their own and later under the auspices of this court’s Mediation Office. When we were informed in July 2016 that a final impasse had been reached, Meritor’s petition to rehear was placed back on the docket for consideration.

In the intervening eight years, a sea change in the applicable law has occurred. The Supreme Court abrogated the Yard-Man line of cases in M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 135 S. Ct. 926 (2015), and this court in Gallo v. Moen Inc., 813 F.3d 265 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, __U.S.__ (Oct. 31, 2016), held that a series of collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) materially indistinguishable from those involved here did not provide the retirees with lifetime healthcare benefits.

This case is now controlled by Tackett and Gallo. We therefore GRANT Meritor’s petition to rehear, REVERSE the judgment of the district court, and REMAND the case for any further proceedings that might be necessary.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW); JAMES WARD; MARSHALL HUNT; RICHARD GORDON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORPORATION; NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 15-2285
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:11-cv-14434—Julian A. Cook, District Judge.
Argued: September 28, 2016
Decided and Filed: April 20, 2017
Before: GILMAN, GIBBONS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Defendants Kelsey-Hayes, TRW Automotive Holdings, and Northrop Grumman appeal the grant of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and the permanent injunction entered in plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs are retirees who brought a class action alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., including breach of fiduciary duty. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s award of summary judgment and modify the permanent injunction.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JACK REESE; FRANCES ELAINE PIDDE; JAMES CICHANOFSKY; ROGER MILLER; GEORGE NOWLIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V.; CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 15-2382
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:04-cv-70592—Patrick J. Duggan, District Judge.
Argued: October 19, 2016
Decided and Filed: April 20, 2017
Before: GIBBONS, SUTTON, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Defendants-appellants CNH Industrial N.V. and CNH Industrial America LLC (collectively “CNH”) appeal the district court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The trial court reversed its grant of summary judgment for CNH and instead granted summary judgment for plaintiffs. In this appeal, CNH again asks this court to find that plaintiffs’ right to lifetime healthcare benefits failed to vest. If, however, we were to find that plaintiffs’ right had vested, CNH believes the district court erred in finding that CNH’s proposed changes were not “reasonably commensurate” with plaintiffs’ current plan.

This matter is complicated by a change in the law since this long-running litigation began. In light of M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 135 S. Ct. 926 (2015), which abrogated this circuit’s Yard-Man line of cases, the district court had to revisit the question of whether plaintiffs had a vested right to lifetime healthcare benefits. The court ultimately found that they did. Because we find that the CBA is ambiguous, and because the extrinsic evidence indicates that parties intended for the healthcare benefits to vest for life, we affirm the district court’s vesting determination. Remand to the district court is proper, however, because it failed to properly weigh the costs and the benefits of the proposed plan, as instructed by Reese II