Labor

Experience

Counseled Leading ULT Freezer Company through Merger

Client: Stirling Ultracold
Counseled Leading ULT Freezer Company through Merger

We counseled our client, Stirling Ultracold, an innovative developer and manufacturer of ultra-low temperature (ULT) freezers for life science and biopharma research, through its merger with BioLife Solutions, Inc., a developer focused on bioproduction devices used in cell and gene therapies. The all-stock mergers was in excess of $230 million.

Stirling’s CEO saw the potential for increased demand for the company’s freezers during the COVID-19 pandemic as the freezers were a direct competitor to dry ice used in storing the COVID-19 vaccine. Merging with BioLife enabled Stirling to execute an aggressive strategic plan marketing and selling its freezers. Dinsmore served as the company’s general counsel since 2019, and our team of attorneys brought experience in mergers and acquisitions, labor, insurance, and life sciences, all of which was necessary to fully understand and address the company’s specialized needs. We counseled our client through the merger while simultaneously defusing challenges. Our team’s collective experience enabled Stirling’s executives to address the company’s short-term needs while also achieving its long-term goal.

“The entire team at Dinsmore was, by far, the best engagement I have had in the 15-plus strategic transactions I have done throughout my career,” said previous Stirling Ultracold CEO Dusty Tenney, now COO and president at BioLife. “Their responsiveness, engagement, availability and deal leadership were extraordinary from LOI to closing.”

Allegations of Wrongful Termination by Ex-Employee of Medical Device Manufacturer

When a medical device manufacturer faced allegations of wrongful termination from an ex-employee, they turned to Dinsmore. The plaintiff was an engineer who was originally hired by the client to serve as a project manager. Upon hiring the plaintiff, the terms of his employment were laid out in an employment contract, which also contained deadlines for the completion of various projects. After nearly a year of employment, it was determined that the plaintiff had not met the required deadlines, and he was terminated. The plaintiff alleged he was wrongfully terminated and filed 10 claims against the client, including alleged violation of public policy, breach of contract and age discrimination. We filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted on nine claims. For the remaining claim of violation of a public policy, we prepared the matter for trial, including managing discovery and taking depositions. On the first day of the trial, before proceedings officially began, we negotiated a settlement favorable to our client, enabling them to avoid litigation.

Christine Skidmore v. Affordable Denture Laboratories

The plaintiff claimed she was the subject of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment created by the lewd comments, dirty jokes and sexual overtures from her supervisor; that her complaints were ignored; and that she was thereafter constructively discharged. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.

Halma Acquisitions

Growing a business is challenging, even with the opportunities offered by today’s global marketplace. Expanding your product and service offerings to your customers requires a strategic vision and focused plan, as well as the resources to pull it all together.

Halma, p.l.c., is an international group of technology companies with its headquarters outside of London, England. Halma has worked with Dinsmore for nearly 25 years. In that time, Dinsmore has represented Halma through a multitude of acquisitions, both domestically and abroad, as Halma has grown to become a global leader in health and safety technology.

When the opportunity recently arose to acquire two companies to boost Halma’s Health and Analysis sector, the company again turned to Dinsmore for counsel. The acquisitions of California-based Sensorex, Inc. and Pennsylvania-based Accutome, Inc., offered myriad challenges. As the deals progressed, it appeared Halma would be able to announce the closings of both transactions to the Stock Exchange on the same day.

Our team worked to structure the asset purchase of Sensorex for $37.5 million and the stock purchase of Accutome for an initial payment of $20 million, handling everything from negotiating and drafting the documents to managing the legal due diligence for both transactions. We assisted Halma with the intellectual property, benefits and employment components of each deal and assisted with all details of closing.

On the Accutome deal, we were faced with the unique task of sequentially structuring the deal to comply with tax law related to the acquisition of Accutome’s Dutch subsidiary. Because of the tax implications of acquiring a subsidiary through one Halma affiliate, while acquiring the parent company through another affiliate, we were asked to ensure that the transaction involving the subsidiary was closed before the U.S. transaction was completed. This required that we coordinate compliance with Dutch requirements in real time, in order to complete the transaction prior to opening of the European markets.

Accutome is primarily known for designing diagnostic equipment used to identify eye conditions and for innovative surgical instruments. Sensorex, a manufacturer of electrochemical water sensors, will enable Halma to enhance its water analysis and water quality programs. Assisted by Dinsmore’s counsel, Halma continues to grow and expand its product offerings to clients and position itself as an industry leader.

Rose v. Beverly Health & Rehab. Services (C.D. Calif.)

Plaintiff alleged a disability discrimination claim. The case was removed based on the collective bargaining agreement and then summary judgment was granted based on judicial estoppel for failure of Plaintiff to disclose the claim as an asset in bankruptcy. Currently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lewis v. Ashland Inc. (D. Minn.)

Represented Valvoline in a lawsuit filed by a former employee alleging claims of violation of Minnesota’s statute regulating drug and alcohol testing by an employer (Lewis v. Ashland Inc. d/b/a Valvoline Instant Oil Change, D. Minn., No. 09-3515, 8/9/11). Summary Judgment was granted to Valvoline, as the Court stated that the plaintiff could not show that Valvoline lacked a “reasonable suspicion” to require him to undergo a drug test or that the company lacked a “rational basis” to discontinue the test based on his conduct at the testing center. In granting the Motion, the Minnesota Court found that Valvoline’s actions in terminating the former employee did not violate Minnesota’s statutes or common law exceptions to the employee at-will doctrine. Of note, in arriving at its decision, the Court highlighted the importance of the Valvoline’s internal human resources structure and management’s use of those channels in its decision to terminate.

Indemnification Claim

We successfully defended a national staffing company in a case where the adverse party sought indemnification in connection with claims brought by the EEOC based on the opponent’s allegedly wrongful conduct. The case was venued in the U.S. District Court in Maryland. We received a favorable judgment. The opponent was ordered to pay more than $2 million.

Enforcement of Non-Compete Agreements Against Former Employees

This case involved enforcement of noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements against former employees who violated their employment contracts when they solicited numerous clients to switch brokerage companies. We successfully enforced the noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements on behalf of our client, the aggrieved insurance brokerage company, then obtained a favorable monetary settlement for our client.

Representation of International Malt Beverage Manufacturer

Representation of client over last 20 plus years on issues pertaining to distributors, distributorship acquisitions, advertising, employment and labor-related issues, antitrust (Kentucky tied house issues), and regulatory issues governed by Kentucky Department of Alcohol Beverage Control

Abels v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. et al., (S.D. W.Va. 1993)

Co-counsel representing large aluminum manufacturers against class action claims filed on behalf of over 300 employees who were laid off and never recalled to work. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants violated § 510 of ERISA by terminating them in order to prevent vesting of their employee benefit plans, and sought job reinstatement and massive awards damages for lost wages and lost benefits, as well as punitive damages. In ruling of the defendants’ pretrial motions, the court denied class certification, concluded that § 510 did not provide a right to extra-contractual relief or punitive damages in an ERISA action seeking enforcement through § 502(a), and held that the employees did not have a right to a jury trial. The parties then settled the case on terms viewed as very favorable by Kaiser and Ravenswood.

Allegations of Employment Discrimination Relating To FMLA

We represented an employer that operates a hotel in suburban Cincinnati, Ohio in an employment discrimination lawsuit. The Plaintiff asserted alleged violations of the FMLA. The case went to trial in the Southern District of Ohio. The Plaintiff sought in excess of $250,000 from the jury, plus attorney fees. Through effective presentation of the evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, we were able to limit the jury’s verdict to only $10,000.

Anonymous Plaintiff v. Health Care Facility

I represented the Defendant, a health care facility, in an employment suit seeking $450,000 for claims of negligent hiring and wrongful termination.  The case resulted in a zero verdict.

Appellate Experience

Lira has served as special counsel for amicus curiae, Michigan Manufacturers' Association and National Association of Manufacturers, on employment and employee benefit issues. Representative cases include:

1) Nord v. The Black & Decker Disability Plan, 538 U.S. 822 (2003): Employee sued employer-sponsored disability plan alleging that the plan wrongfully denied his claim for benefits by failing to give proper weight to his treating physician's opinion. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether ERISA's requirement for a full and fair consideration of the employee's claim included giving deference to the treating physician's opinion. The Court held in favor of the benefit plan and reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, a position advocated by the National Association of Manufacturers' amicus brief.

2) Chambers v. Trettco, 463 Mich. 297, 614 N.W.2d 910 (2000): Employee sued employer under Michigan's Civil Rights Act alleging sexual harassment by a supervisory employee. The employer argued that it was not vicariously liable under the Michigan Civil Rights Act, citing key differences in the Michigan statute and Title VII. The Michigan Court of Appeals applied an analysis consistent with Title VII and held the employer liable. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, following position advocated by the Michigan Manufacturers' Association's amicus brief, relying on differences in the text of the state law to hold that the principles stated in the federal civil rights cases did not control.

3) Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 469 Mich. 124, 666 N.W.2d 186 (2002): Employee sued employer under Michigan's Civil Rights Act alleging pregnancy discrimination. The trial court denied the employer's motion for summary disposition and the matter was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the employee. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and reversed and remanded, following position advocated by the Michigan Manufacturers' Association's amicus, with direction to enter a finding of no cause of action as a matter of law.

Lira has also represented appellants in federal and state courts. Representative cases include:

4) Taunt v. General Retirement Sys. of the City of Detroit (In Re: Wilcox), 233 F.3d 899 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 929 (June 2001): Bankruptcy trustee sought access to debtor's retirement benefits on behalf of creditors, and debtor's municipal retirement plan sought to protect the benefits under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). The bankruptcy court held that the plan's anti-assignment provision was not enforceable under § 541(c)(2), and the district court agreed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the anti-assignment provision satisfied § 541(c)(2) and that the benefits could not be reached by creditors.

5) Preston v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48260 (S. Dist. Ohio 2006): Former employee sued his employer and insurance company administrating the employer's disability benefit plan, contending that he was wrongfully denied benefits. The insurer and employer moved for judgment as a matter of law on the basis that ERISA preempted the employee's claims and that the employee failed to state an actionable claim. The court ruled in favor of defendants and granted summary judgment.

6) Prudential Property and Casualty Ins. v. Delfield Co. Group Health Plan, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18708 (Sixth Circuit 1999): Plaintiff insurance carrier sued defendant self-funded employee benefit plan, contending that the employee benefit plan was primarily responsible for medical expenses incurred by its insured in an automobile accident. The employee benefit plan sought to require the insurer to pursue its claim administratively before resorting to litigation. The district court ruled in favor of the benefits plan, but the appeals court reversed on the basis that it was bound to follow a prior panel's ruling and allow litigation, although the concurrence pointed out that the prior ruling was inconsistent with subsequent case law. 

7) Alstork v. AIG Life Ins. Co. et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case No. 08-4339 (2008): Plaintiff beneficiary of employee's life insurance policy sued defendant employer, employee benefit plan, and insurer, contending that Plaintiff should have been paid accidental death benefits when employee died following an automobile accident. Defendants denied benefits based on the terms of the benefit plan and results of post-accident medical review. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio upheld denial of benefits, and Plaintiff appealed. Case successfully settled on appeal.

8) Hodges v. American Heritage Life Ins. Co., United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case No. 08-5777 (2008) (pending): Plaintiff former employee sued defendant employer, employee benefit plan, and insurer, contending that Plaintiff should have been paid disability benefits for chronic condition characterized by subjective complaints of pain. Defendants denied benefits based on the terms of the benefit plan and results of independent medical reviews. The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky upheld denial of benefits, and Plaintiff appealed. Case is pending.

Arbitration Transport Workers Union of America, Local No. 208 v. COTA Security Gate

This case involved the addition of job duties to a bargaining unit position and whether management could make the assignment without negotiating with the Union. The Arbitrator confirmed that this was within management's right.

Arbitration, Oil Refinery and United Steel Workers, Duped Wages

Union sought 2 years of back pay over alleged misrepresentation regarding the changes to method of calculation of wages under a 12 hour shift agreement. Based on the Union's calculations, the Company owed the Union in excess of $1 million dollars in unpaid overtime. The arbitrator's decision denied the grievance in its entirety.

Arbitration, Oil Refinery and United Steel Workers, Employee Discharge

Grievant was discharged for failing to pass qualifications testing. The arbitration was significant because it established that the testing process is reasonable, fair, and calculated to determine the qualifications of the individual. Moreover, the grading process was also determined to be fair. The decision is significant in that challenges to the process are unlikely.

Arbitration, Oil Refinery and United Steel Workers, HAZOP

This case involved the Company's decision not to follow a participative program provision in the contract, where the Union had unilateral veto rights over the Union's participation in the program. The Company instead assigned employees under management's rights to work on process safety management. The arbitrator upheld the Company's right to make the work assignment, even though it was not a typical job duty of the assigned employee.

Arbitration, Oil Refinery and United Steel Workers, Maintenance Bid

This case involved the Company's right to post jobs and fill positions based upon qualifications, instead of straight seniority. The Company had never exercised the right in over 50 years at the facility. The arbitrator held that "deciding when a position is open, at what level to fill an open position, establishing and determining position qualifications and determining who is qualified are all traditional and recognized functions of management. * * * Mere non-use of a right does not entail a loss of it."

Arbitration, Oil Refinery and United Steel Workers, Paragraph 131 Wages

In this case, the Union challenged the wage rate for new position created when the Company installed a Gasoline Desulphurization Unit. The installation caused a restructuring in the line up. This was a case of first impression under the contract. The Company's restructuring of the department and wage rate set for the new position was upheld, and the arbitrator adopted the Company's proposed standard of review for new wage rates. The decision paved the way for further restructuring.

Arbitration, Oil Refinery and United Steel Workers, Scheduling

In this case, the Union grieved the rotation of workers through different assignments at the Lima facility, contending that the definition of schedule under the contract included days and hours of work, as well as the work assignment. The Union's position was that a two-week rotation had to be followed, which meant that the Company would have to call in workers on overtime to cover shifts if the rotation put an employee in a position for which they were not yet qualified (eg. boilerhouse). The Arbitrator confirmed the Company's position and held that the schedule is limited to the days and hours of work. The Company's management rights clause allowed the Company to change employees' rotation through assignments, which significantly reduced the Company's overtime costs.

Arbitration, Oil Refinery and United Steel Workers, Use of Contractors

In this case, the Union challenged the wage rate for new position created when the Company installed a Gasoline Desulphurization Unit. The installation caused a restructuring in the line up. This was a case of first impression under the contract. The Company's restructuring of the department and wage rate set for the new position was upheld, and the arbitrator adopted the Company's proposed standard of review for new wage rates. The decision paved the way for further restructuring.

AT&T Corp. Deliberate Intent Litigation (Kanawha, County, WV 2008)

Lead counsel in the successful defense of AT&T against 25 consolidated deliberate intent civil actions filed by a unified group of former employees who alleged that they sustained serious injuries as a result of exposure to mold in the company’s Charleston Call Center. Suit also was filed against several co-defendants, including the building’s owners and maintenance contractors. AT&T denied that there was mold present in the building sufficient to establish the existence of a specific unsafe working condition, or that the plaintiffs could establish any of the other requisite statutory elements of their deliberate intent claims. After extensive lay and expert witness discovery, the plaintiff’s dismissed their claims against AT&T in exchange for payment of only nominal sums.

Baldwin v. General Electric Co.

Obtained summary judgment in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio on two plaintiffs' claims for sexual harassment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and obtained favorable settlement through private mediation on plaintiffs' claims for negligent retention and failure to provide unsafe workplace.

Bell v. Ashland Oil, Inc.(S.D. W.Va. 1998)

Co-counsel defending Ashland Oil against claims initiated by a former refinery engineer who was terminated from his employment after the company found that he had engaged in conduct in violation of its sexual harassment policy. The plaintiff asserted claims against Ashland Oil for wrongful discharge in violation of West Virginia public policy, defamation and fraud. Following cross examination of the plaintiff on the first day of trial, the court invited us to move for a directed verdict. To avoid that result, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims and trial was concluded.

Beverly Coda v. Thorntons, Inc.

Won summary judgment in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for promissory estoppel, breach of contract, and gender discrimination.

Booker v. Garden Manor

Complaint filed in Federal District Court alleging claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and spoilation against our client Garden Manor Nursing Home. We were granted summary judgment dismissing all claims.

Class Action v. Manufactured House Sellers

We defended a national seller of manufactured housing in state and federal courts against alleged product liability, fraud, and RICO claims based on manufactured housing fire risks. Following successful motion practice, all claims were dismissed.

Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiations

Colleen Lewis assisted the Cincinnati Ballet Company with its negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement with the Theatrical Wardrobe Union. Colleen also represented the Ballet in an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Union in Region 9, wherein the Union alleged that the Ballet engaged in bargaining to impasse over a permissive subject of bargaining. Colleen represented the Ballet, maintaining that the Ballet was engaging in proper and good faith bargaining. Colleen was able to negotiate a resolution of the charge, which resulted in the parties returning to the bargaining table, and a withdrawal of the unfair labor practice charge.

Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiations

Our firm worked with the bargaining team from OPW Engineered Systems, a Dover Company, negotiating a 5-year collective bargaining agreement with the Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers' International Union and its Local No. 45-B. The members voted to approve the company's final and best offer the eve before the contract expired, avoiding a strike.

Cornell v. General Electric Plastics, 853 F. Supp. 221 (S.D. W. Va. 1994)

Lead counsel defending GE against claims by a former female employee, who, after being fired following 18 years of employment, alleged sex discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, Title VII, and the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The Court granted summary judgment to GE on all claims, finding that § 1981 applied to racial but not sexual discrimination, rejecting the Title VII claim because the plaintiff had not first unsuccessfully pursued her state administrative remedies, and dismissing her claim under the Human Rights Act because she could not submit any evidence contradicting GE’s evidence suggesting poor work performance as the reason for her discharge.