Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

March 5, 2007

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
-Employment Law - Ohio state law piercing standards
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinions.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

No Opinions.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

Corrigan v. US Steel Corp  (March 5, 2007)(Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0090p-06.pdf
-  The plaintiffs, James T. Corrigan and William Watterson, are former nonunion steel industry employees. After the two men retired, they sued United States Steel Corp. (U.S. Steel) and Kobe Steel, Ltd., claiming entitlement to increased retirement benefits and damages for age discrimination. Neither defendant was ever the plaintiffs' direct employer. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that on both claims―retirement benefits and age discrimination―the plaintiffs, to survive summary judgment, had to demonstrate that they were entitled to pierce the defendant corporations' corporate veils under Ohio law, and failed to do so. We affirm the district court's application of Ohio state law piercing standards, rather than the federal law standards, and we agree that, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs have not made out a justiciable case showing the defendants' liability for the enhanced retirement benefits the plaintiffs claim. However, we also conclude that the district court erred in finding against the plaintiffs on their state law discrimination claim because the plaintiffs' veil piercing efforts failed. We hold, rather, that while the plaintiffs' age discrimination claim against U.S. Steel required no veil piercing, the claim fails because the plaintiffs have not shown that they are victims of unlawful age discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
 

Daily Case Updates