Legal Opinion

Ginderske v. Eaton Corp.

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided May 12, 2004No. 03-10104-BCPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

' LAWSON, District Judge'.

The plaintiff, Paul Ginderske, was fired for insubordination from his union-protected manufacturing job with defendant Eaton Corporation. His union, Local 6-433 of the Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union AFL-CIO, CLC (the Union), challenged the termination through the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA),- but declined to pursue the last step in the process, which was formal arbitration. Thereafter, Ginderske filed the present action…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Vaca v. SipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Bain v. General Motors Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API