Kathleen McCarthy v. Ameritech Publishing, Inc., 763 F.3d 469

McCarthy, a long-time API employee, was notified in Aug 2008 that her position would be eliminated in a forced reduction under the CBA’s surplus provisions.
She could choose a lump-sum termination payment or join the Employment Opportunity Pool to continue benefits and pension accrual; she chose the latter to preserve health and pension benefits.
API initially told her she could retire with post-retirement healthcare benefits, but then management contradicted that and informed her she was not eligible.
McCarthy later learned Fidelity advised eligibility under the Original Rule of 75, while API managers claimed otherwise; this discrepancy underpins her fraudulent-inducement claim.
McCarthy retired in May 2009 after participating in the pool, and a later 2009 adjustment changed seniority treatment, affecting the surplus outcome.
The district court granted summary judgment on most counts; the Seventh issue on fraudulent inducement was reserved for jury consideration, and McCarthy appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraudulent inducement elements met	McCarthy argues API made false eligibility representations	API asserts no misrepresentation or justifiable reliance	McCarthy may present her fraud claim to a jury
ERISA preemption of fraud claim	Fraud claim seeks damages for non-plan benefits, not plan benefits	ERISA preempts state-law claims “relating to” a plan	Fraud claim not preempted; damages outside ERISA benefits permitted
ERISA plan-document disclosure claim	Requests for documents should trigger ERISA §1024/1025 penalties	Requests directed to wrong entity and not properly served in writing	Summary judgment affirmed; requests not properly directed/served under ERISA statutes
FLSA wage claim during Employment Opportunity Pool	Wages during pool were unpaid or mischaracterized	Payments were under the pool per contract, not severance; no unpaid wages	FLSA claim fails; payments were contractually governed by the Employment Opportunity Agreement
Promissory estoppel vs fraudulent inducement	Promise to provide benefits if retirement pursued	No binding promise; Fidelity/plan administrators control eligibility	Summary judgment for promissory-estoppel on that theory rejected; fraud claim remains

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Triskett Ill., Inc., 646 N.E.2d 532 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (elements of Ohio fraudulent-inducement claim)
Cromwell v. Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp., 944 F.2d 1272 (6th Cir. 1991) (ERISA preemption scope; plan-benefit focus)
Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 360 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (discrimination in workforce reductions requires additional evidence of bias)
Clay v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 501 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 2007) (pretext framework for discrimination cases in the context of layoffs)
Jones v. UOP, 16 F.3d 141 (7th Cir. 1994) (ERISA document-disclosure requirements; proper channels)
Minadeo v. ICI Paints, 398 F.3d 751 (6th Cir. 2005) (attorney-directed requests; proper venue for document requests)
Wuliger v. Mfrs. Life Ins. Co., 567 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 2009) (unjust enrichment vs express contract)
HAD Enters. v. Galloway, 948 N.E.2d 473 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (unjust enrichment/contract interplay in Ohio)