THOMAS BALTRUSAITIS; GUILLERMO ANTUNEZ; PATRICK BARTH; RICHARD BROECKER; RYAN BUDEK; TUYEN CHU; DARRYL CRAIG; SATISH DOSHI; JOHN FLETCHER; JON HUTCHINSON; ALAN R. JARZEMBOWSKI; FRANK KOTSONIS; SANDRA D. LANGE; ARTHUR LAURIN; KEVIN LUCZAK; TIM MAURO- VETTER; REGINALD MCINTYRE; CARL OBERNDORFER; JEROME PEACOCK; EJAZ RAHMAN; CHARLIE RICKMAN; MARK ROSINSKI; GREG RYNTZ; MICHAEL SAVOSKY; BRIAN SCHIFFMAN; FRED SCHNELL; MARK SKELLY; GREGORY SKONIECZNY; LISA SOWINSKI; SURAJ TANDON; CHANCE TESS; JAMES VIRIGLIO; BRIAN WARDA; COREY WATKINS; DANNY WOODRUFF; HAROLD WRIGHT; JOHN ZELL; JAMES ZIEMIANSKI v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA; FCA US, LLC; ALPHONS IACOBELLI; JEROME DURDEN; MICHAEL BROWN; DENNIS WILLIAMS; GARY JONES; NORWOOD H. JEWELL; VIRDELL KING; KEITH MICKENS, JOHN DOES 1–10 - Articles

All Content

THOMAS BALTRUSAITIS; GUILLERMO ANTUNEZ; PATRICK BARTH; RICHARD BROECKER; RYAN BUDEK; TUYEN CHU; DARRYL CRAIG; SATISH DOSHI; JOHN FLETCHER; JON HUTCHINSON; ALAN R. JARZEMBOWSKI; FRANK KOTSONIS; SANDRA D. LANGE; ARTHUR LAURIN; KEVIN LUCZAK; TIM MAURO- VETTER; REGINALD MCINTYRE; CARL OBERNDORFER; JEROME PEACOCK; EJAZ RAHMAN; CHARLIE RICKMAN; MARK ROSINSKI; GREG RYNTZ; MICHAEL SAVOSKY; BRIAN SCHIFFMAN; FRED SCHNELL; MARK SKELLY; GREGORY SKONIECZNY; LISA SOWINSKI; SURAJ TANDON; CHANCE TESS; JAMES VIRIGLIO; BRIAN WARDA; COREY WATKINS; DANNY WOODRUFF; HAROLD WRIGHT; JOHN ZELL; JAMES ZIEMIANSKI v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA; FCA US, LLC; ALPHONS IACOBELLI; JEROME DURDEN; MICHAEL BROWN; DENNIS WILLIAMS; GARY JONES; NORWOOD H. JEWELL; VIRDELL KING; KEITH MICKENS, JOHN DOES 1–10

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 4, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Robert L. Levi, ROBERT L. LEVI, PC, Commerce Township, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Jacob Karabell, BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee International Union.

Attorneys 3: ARGUED: Brian M. Schwartz, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC, Troy, Michigan, for Appellee FCA.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Robert L. Levi, ROBERT L. LEVI, PC, Commerce Township, Michigan, Kenneth D. Myers, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Jacob Karabell, Elisabeth Oppenheimer, Grace Rybak, BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee International Union.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Brian M. Schwartz, Thomas W. Cranmer, MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC, Troy, Michigan, for Appellee FCA.

Attorneys 7: ON BRIEF: Michael A. Nedelman, NEDELMAN LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellee Alphons Iacobelli.

Judge(s): MOORE, CLAY, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case asks us to resolve whether Plaintiffs may bring state-law claims in state court based on a bribery scheme between one of the nation’s largest unions and one of the largest auto manufacturers (which resulted in multiple, federal criminal indictments) or whether the claims must be heard in federal court. We hold that such claims must be heard in federal court because Congress has completely preempted any claims based on the rights created by the collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs are thirty-eight current and former engineers employed by Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”), the successor corporation to Chrysler Group, LLC. Plaintiffs are and were members of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW”), the union representing engineering employees of FCA. Once the massive bribery scheme was made public, Plaintiffs pursued workplace grievances alleging that FCA officials had paid bribes to UAW officials to transfer Plaintiffs’ workplaces in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. These grievances were denied, and a previous panel of this court held that federal claims based on these grievances were time-barred. While Plaintiffs pursued their federal claims in federal court, they also filed a complaint in state court asserting state common-law claims. Following removal of the state-court action to federal court, the district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for remand, and the parties stipulated to dismissal. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment and order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for remand.

Attachments: