Barbara Fletcher, et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc.

Fletcher v. Honeywell International Inc., 892 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 2018) holds that a “CBA’s general durational clause applies to [retiree] healthcare benefits unless it contains clear, affirmative language indicating the contrary.” Fletcher holds that courts may not consider “extrinsic” trial evidence of the parties’ intentions even though the CBA—read “naturally”—is “arguably” ambiguous, “implies” healthcare until the retiree’s “death,” and explicitly promises to continue healthcare for the retiree’s survivors’ “lifetime.” Fletcher’s reluctant concurring judge recognizes that the Honeywell CBAs are “ambiguous” on “their face” and require consideration of “extrinsic evidence” to “ascertain the intent of the parties”—but that Sixth Circuit decisions “preclude” this. Fletcher raises these questions warranting review under S.Ct.Rules 10(a) and (c):

1. whether Fletcher conflicts with CNH Industrial v. Reese, 138 S.Ct. 761 (2018) and other Supreme Court decisions holding that obligations outlasting CBA expiration may be “implied” and with the Seventh Circuit holding that lifetime retiree healthcare obligations do not require “‘magic words’ or unequivocal contract language”;

2. whether Fletcher applies an anti-vesting presumption which conflicts with M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 135 S.Ct. 926 (2015), which abrogated all presumptions regarding collectively-bargained retiree healthcare as violating “ordinary contract principles”;