# Authier v. Ginsberg

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 26, 1985 · 757 F.2d 796

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8929824

## Case

- **Full name:** Emery AUTHIER, Jr. v. Fred M. GINSBERG, American Steel Corporation, a Michigan corporation and National Steel Corporation, a foreign corporation, jointly and severally
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 26, 1985
- **Citations:** 757 F.2d 796; 6 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1420
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Edwards
- **Judges:** Celebrezze, Edwards, Martin
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8929824

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that Michigan law would recognize a discharged employee’s compliance with ERISA fiduciary duties and obligations as an activity protected by public policy
- concluding that Michigan would recognize as protected activity employee’s compliance with ERISA fiduciary obligations
- finding Michigan’s common law cause of action for discharge in contravention of public policy preempted by ERISA
- finding fiduciary’s state claim based on unlawful discharge preempted

## Opinion text

GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
This appeal poses many problems but I am not persuaded that the jury award should be vacated. Plaintiff pled and presented evidence to support a claim that he was wrongfully discharged for seeking to uphold his fiduciary duties under ERI-SA. In my opinion, plaintiff stated a cause of action under Michigan law for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The following cases illustrate Michigan’s stated policy in this regard. I recognize that it has been more often stated in dicta than illustrated in judgments. Nonetheless, the facts in this case as viewed by this jury fit the Michigan theory and I see no reason to doubt that Michigan would protect the integrity of ERISA as part of its own public policy. See Suchodolski v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., 412 Mich. 692 , 316 N.W.2d 710 (1982); Trombetta v. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad Co., 81 Mich. App. 489 , 265 N.W.2d 385 (1978) and Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. 644 , 245 N.W.2d 151 (1976).
*803 I should add that I do not think ERISA preempted the Michigan cause of action spelled out above. ERISA does not expressly create a federal cause of action for wrongful discharge of a fiduciary.
While, if I were not writing in dissent, I would give serious thought to defendants’ remittitur motion, I do not join in vacation of the entire jury award.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8929824. Public record. Not legal advice.