United States Sixth Circuit

In an ERISA action based on Defendant-Employer's alleged closure of a plant to interfere with Plaintiffs' retirement benefits, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where Defendant's argument that it closed the plant due to overcapacity could not be said to be a mere pretext.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/31/2009
• Published 03/31/2009

Judges

• Before MARTIN and COOK, Circuit Judges;  WATSON, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Jeanne E. Mirer, Eisner & Mirer, New York, New York, for Appellants.  Robert M. Vercruysse, Vercruysse, Murray & Calzone, Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Jeanne E. Mirer, Eisner & Mirer, New York, New York, for Appellants.  Robert M. Vercruysse, William E. Altman, Vercruysse, Murray & Calzone, Bingham Farms, Michigan, Brian A. Paton, TRW Automotive, Livonia, Michigan, for Appellee.