John Carroll Burgin, Jr.

Practice Details

• Payment Information
  Accepted Credit Cards

  American Express
  Discover
  MasterCard
  Visa
• Firm Information
  Position

  Partner

  Firm Name

  Kramer Rayson LLP
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  REPRESENTATIVE CASES: Miller v. Retirement Program Plan for Employees of Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC, 775 Fed. Appx. 236, 237 (6th Cir. 2019), employee brought ERISA claim against client's defined benefit pension plan seeking a declaration that employee was entitled to have the amount of his accrued (future retirement) benefit calculated to include the time employee worked as leased employee for subcontractor. Court of Appeals held the 'relevant plan terms are clear' in saying time as leased employee counted toward vesting but not toward the amount of an employee's accrued benefit.
  Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 102 v. Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC., No. 3:24-cv-00121-DCLC-JEM, 2024 WL 1261773 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 25, 2024). Local union sought reverse Boys Markets injunction against client alleging client sought to terminate other employees when it reinstated grievant pursuant to arbitration award. District Court refused to issue injunction, finding the local union failed to prove client had discharged any employees or planned to discharge any employees in retaliation for having to reinstate the three employees because of the arbitrator's award
  because the local union's alleged harm was not irreparable.
  Epperson v. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-307-TRM-DCP, 2020 WL 3442317 (E.D. Tenn. Jun. 2020). Magistrate Judge quashed subpoena seeking testimony from client's CEO
  seeking 15 years worth of employment records for another employee.
  Epperson v. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-307-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 21, 2020). After client terminated employee for violating safety requirements, District Court granted client's motion for summary judgment on whistleblower claim brought under Tenn. Code Ann. 50-1-304(b) finding that employee failed to show safety reason for employee's termination was pretextual.
  Hatmaker v. Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC, No. 3:15-cv-351-TAV-HBG, 2018 WL 2436808 (E.D. Tenn. May 30, 2018), when client changed retiree medical benefits, employees who had retired after working for previous contractors at Y-12 National Security Complex, brought ERISA misrepresentation claim against client, current Y-12 contractor, alleging previous contractors had stated retiree medical benefits would not be changed after employees retired. Court granted summary judgment for client citing 29 U.S.C. 1109(b)
  holding alleged breaches of fiduciary duty were at most committed by past fiduciaries, not by current contractor.
  Hatmaker v. Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC, No. 3:15-cv-351-TAV-HBG, 2018 WL 2436808 (E.D. Tenn. May 22, 2018), when client changed retiree medical benefits, employees who had retired after working for previous contractors at Y-12 National Security Complex, brought ERISA misrepresentation claim against client, seeking to represent class of retirees. Magistrate Judge recommended against class certification because retirees failed to show questions of fact or law in common
  their claims were not typical of the class.
  McCarter v. UT-Battelle, LLC, No 3:20-cv-483, 2022 WL 3654940 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2022). Security Police Officer brought religious discrimination claim after client issued written warning because he refused three orders to remove religious patch from tactical vest. Court granted summary judgment for client, holding written warning was not discharge or discipline as required by CA6 precedent
  client's reasons for issuing warning was not pretext for retaliation.
  Michelhaugh v. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC, No. E2019-00361-COA-R3-CV, 2020 WL 4668095 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020), court of appeals affirmed dismissal of second lawsuit by employees who had brought putative class action challenging client's decision to change how vacation accrued from being vested in a lump sum on January 1 for the remainder of the year to being accrued throughout the year. Employees asserted they had a vested right to the lump sum but court held their argument contracted the plain language of the vacation policy
  client never deprived any employee of any earned vacation compensation. Court also held claims of some plaintiffs were untimely under the statute of limitations because Tennessee savings statute only applied to plaintiffs who were parties in the original lawsuit
  Tennessee has not adopted class action tolling doctrine.