Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

James R. Millsap, et al. v. McDonald Douglas Corporation

Date: 09-03-2004

Case Number: Unknown

Judge: Sven Erik Holmes

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Paul W. Mollica of Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica, Chicago, Illinois (Thomas R. Meites, Michael M. Mulder, and Josie Raimond of Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica, Chicago, Illinois; Joseph R. Farris, Paula J. Quillan, and Jody R. Nathan of Feldman, Franden, Woodard, Farris & Boudreaux, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Bill Brumley of Brumley & Bishop, Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Christopher G. Mackaronis of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, Washington D.C., with him on the briefs) for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Defendant's Attorney:

Thomas E. Wack of Bryan Cave, LLP, St. Louis, Missouri (Daniel S. Hoffman and Sean Connelly of Hoffman, Reilly, Pozner & Williamson LLP, Denver, Colorado; John W. Walbran of McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri, with him on the brief) for Defendant-Appellant.

Description:

Defendant manufactured and assembled military aircraft at a plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Defendant's employees at the plant participated in pension and/or health care plans qualified under ERISA. Defendant announced the closing of the Tulsa plant in December 1993. Defendant subsequently laid off all employees at the Tulsa plant. The Plaintiff class consists of 1,074 of those employees. Plaintiffs filed this action in 1994 alleging Defendant violated § 510 of ERISA. Section 510 provides in relevant part: "It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge . . . or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary . . . for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan [or Title I of ERISA.]" 29 U.S.C. § 1140. According to the complaint, Defendant closed the Tulsa plant to prevent Plaintiffs from attaining eligibility for benefits under their pension and health care plans. Plaintiffs requested damages, an order requiring Defendant to make restitution to their benefit plans, and any other equitable or remedial relief.

Outcome:
Settled for $8.1 million.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Unknown
Defendant's Experts:
Unknown
Comments:
None

About This Case

What was the outcome of James R. Millsap, et al. v. McDonald Douglas Corporation?

The outcome was: Settled for $8.1 million.

Which court heard James R. Millsap, et al. v. McDonald Douglas Corporation?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, OH. The presiding judge was Sven Erik Holmes.

Who were the attorneys in James R. Millsap, et al. v. McDonald Douglas Corporation?

Plaintiff's attorney: Paul W. Mollica of Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica, Chicago, Illinois (Thomas R. Meites, Michael M. Mulder, and Josie Raimond of Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica, Chicago, Illinois; Joseph R. Farris, Paula J. Quillan, and Jody R. Nathan of Feldman, Franden, Woodard, Farris & Boudreaux, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Bill Brumley of Brumley & Bishop, Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Christopher G. Mackaronis of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, Washington D.C., with him on the briefs) for Plaintiffs-Appellees.. Defendant's attorney: Thomas E. Wack of Bryan Cave, LLP, St. Louis, Missouri (Daniel S. Hoffman and Sean Connelly of Hoffman, Reilly, Pozner & Williamson LLP, Denver, Colorado; John W. Walbran of McDonnell-Douglas Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri, with him on the brief) for Defendant-Appellant..

When was James R. Millsap, et al. v. McDonald Douglas Corporation decided?

This case was decided on September 3, 2004.