Successfully defended company in ULP case regarding failure to provide information which was outside control of employer and where employer made good faith effort to obtain. Employer not obligated as part of good faith efforts to end contractual relationship over negative reply of a contractor in order to force its cooperation.

Represented company in Section 303 damage case in federal court regarding union violence in secondary boycott where union defense was single employer claims. Won $6.8 million in damages.

Case involved company's obligation to provide health benefits to retired and disabled miners after expiration of 1981 Wage Agreement when it ceased all active mining and did not execute 1984 Wage Agreement.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

An employee of our client Pamida, a former chain of department stores, was terminated following an investigation into claims of sexual harassment. The employee alleged that he was terminated as a result of reporting his concerns about “waste, fraud and abuse,” including the sale of out-dated over-the-counter medicine, and he filed a suit against our client claiming wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and defamation resulting from the investigation. We thoroughly investigated the claims, and determined that the employee’s termination was valid. We then obtained summary judgment on all the claims. Stargle v. Pamida, Inc., 2007 U.S. District LEXIS 50579 (W.D. Ky. 2007).