NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 07a0445n.06 Filed: June 25, 2007 No. 06-4314 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
PATRI CK G. Z BU KA, SR., Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. MARATHON A SHL AND PET RO L EU M, L L C, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI ST R I CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO
OPI NI ON

Be for e : G ILM AN , G IBBO NS, and G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . Patrick G. Z buka, Sr. had be en an em p l o y ee of Marathon Ashland Petroleum, L L C or its predec essor since 1979. I n J une of 2004, f ollo wing two costly

mishaps inv olv ing Z bu ka , Maratho n g a ve him the c ho ic e of e ith e r r e tir ingor

be ingte rm inate d. He c ho se to retire . There afte r, Z buka filed a n action in fe dera l district court alleg ing that Marathon violated § 5 10 of the Em plo y e e Re tir e me nt I

nc ome Se c ur ity

Ac t ( ERI SA) by

int e rf e ri ngwith hi s ri ght to
co n t i n u e earning benef

its under Marathon’s employ ee pe nsion plan. Z buka also a rg ued that Maratho n’ s o ff

e r t o p e rm it him to r e tir e ins te a d o f b e ingte rm inate d v iol a te d § 51 0 b y c utt ingof

f h is rig ht under the collective barg aining ag ree ment to gr ieve his termination. The district court g rante d Marathon’s motion for summary judgme nt, and Z buka timely appea led.No. 06-4314

Zbuka v. Marathon

- 2 - Af te r c a re fu lly

c on sid e ri ngthe re c or d o n a pp e a l, the br ie fs of

the pa rt ie s, a nd the a pp lic a ble law, and ha

ving ha d the bene fit of ora l arg ument, we ag ree with the di strict court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of

Marathon. To the extent Zbuka claims that his termination violated § 510 beca use it interf

ere d with his right to continue a ccr uing be nefits under

the Plan, the district court
car efully and thoroug hly

explained why

this arg ument fails. A de t ai l ed wr i t ten opinion by us
cover ing the same g round would there fore be unduly duplicative. The judgme nt rende red on that issue by the Honora

ble J ames G. Car

r, Chief Judge of

the United States D i strict Court for the No rt he rn Di str ic t of Oh io, is a c c or din g ly a ff ir me d on the ba sis of the re a so nin g set for th in his Opinion dated August 25, 2006. Judg e Carr

a lso he ld t

hat th e c ourt

la c ke d ju

ri sd ic tio n o ve r Z bu ka ’s c la im r e g a rd inghis g rieva nce rig hts. We de cline to r eac h this issue be cause we c onclude that Z buka’s c omplaint raised
no su ch stand -a lon e c la im. I ns te a d, Z bu ka a lle g e d at mo st that Ma

ra tho n’ s in te rf

e re nc e wi th h is griev a nc e ri g hts vio la te d § 51 0 o f E RI SA. Th e c ru x of t his c la im i s th a t, h a d Z bu ka su c c e ssf ull y g rieve d his termination instead of beingalleg edly lured into retire ment by Marathon, he could have continued wor

king a nd acc ruing benef

its. This argument thus boils down t o nothing more than an attenuate d version of Zbuka ’s i nitial claim, which the di strict court properly reje cted. In sum, any alleg ed interf

ere nce w ith Z buka’s rig ht to g rieve his te rmination does not a mount to an inter fer ence with his rights under

the Plan and ther efor e fa ils to st ate a valid claim under

§ 510. For all of the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.