United States Sixth Circuit

In a suit brought by former workers and their spouses against their former employer, a city, the state of Ohio, and other parties, arising from the move of their employer's plant from one Ohio city to another after it signed an agreement for favorable tax treatment, dismissal of most of the claims raised by plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) constitutional claims were moot; 2) plaintiffs lacked standing for their fraud claims based on a failure of redressability; 3) section 1983 claims failed under the state compulsion test and the symbiotic relationship or nexus test; 4) plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to create a reasonable inference of age discrimination; 5) claims of breach of the CBA were fundamentally meritless; 6) plaintiffs failed to establish their claim of malicious interference with the right to petition the government, as they never petitioned the government; and 7) claims of loss of consortium failed as there was no allegation of bodily injury.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/14/2007
• Published 12/14/2007

Judges

• Before:  DAUGHTREY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges;  EDMUNDS, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Dwight D. Brannon, Brannon & Associates, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellants.  Teresa D. Jones, Thompson Hine, Dayton, Ohio, Brandi L. Dorgan, Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Dwight D. Brannon, Matthew C. Schultz, Brannon & Associates, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellants.  Brandi L. Dorgan, Steven G. LaForge, Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, Columbus, Ohio, Teresa D. Jones, Thompson Hine, Dayton, Ohio, Stacy M. Wall, City of Piqua Law Director, Piqua, Ohio, William J. Cole, Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.