Gilbert P. Brosky

Partner

Cleveland
T +1.216.861.7547
F +1.216.696.0740

Overview

Gil Brosky concentrates his employment litigation practice on the resolution of complex class and collective actions. A large part of his time is devoted to representing employers in nationwide ERISA cases on a wide range of issues ranging from collectively bargained retiree benefits, alleged independent contractor misclassification, denial of benefits, and COBRA compliance. Gil has also successfully litigated numerous class and collective wage and hour disputes across the country under both state and federal law.

Part of Gil’s success is attributable to his extensive familiarity with large-scale electronic data issues, and using such data offensively to promote the best result for the employer. Gil is a contributor to BakerHostetler’s Employment Class Action blog, offering commentary on recent class action decisions and trends affecting employers.

Select Experience

  • Successfully argued before the Sixth Circuit for reversal of arbitrator’s award of retiree healthcare benefits under a collective bargaining agreement.
  • Has represented third-party COBRA administrators in numerous actions brought under ERISA.
  • Has extensively analyzed and litigated the limits of “equitable remedies” available to ERISA plaintiffs.
More »

Experience

  • Successfully argued before the Sixth Circuit for reversal of arbitrator’s award of retiree healthcare benefits under a collective bargaining agreement.
  • Has represented third-party COBRA administrators in numerous actions brought under ERISA.
  • Has extensively analyzed and litigated the limits of “equitable remedies” available to ERISA plaintiffs.
  • Has frequently analyzed employee data in class and collective actions to identify litigation strategies and rebut alleged damages.
  • Successfully defended an asserted national class action alleging disparate impact with respect to the use of criminal background checks in the hotel industry.
  • Has defended numerous individual lawsuits in both state and federal courts.
  • Frequently advises employers on restructurings and reductions in force.
Representative Decisions
  • UAW v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, 2019 WL 1040636 (6th Cir. 2019)
  • Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 914 F.3d 449 (6th Cir. 2019)
  • UAW v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 138 U.S. 1166 (2018)
  • Jones-Rankins v. Cardinal Health Inc., 540 Fed. Appx. 806 (9th Cir. 2013)
  • Van Pamel v. TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., 723 F.3d 664 (6th Cir. 2013)
  • UAW v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 192 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2677 (E.D. Mich. 2011)
  • Schreiber v. Philips Display Components Co., 692 F. Supp. 2d 747 (E.D. Mich. 2010), aff'd, 503 Fed. Appx. 385 (6th Cir. 2012)
  • Baechle v. Energizer Battery Mfg., Inc., 2010 WL 2342473 (N.D. Ohio 2010)
  • Bloedow v. CSX Transp., Inc., 638 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Ohio 2009)
  • Heffelfinger v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 580 F. Supp. 2d 933 (C.D. Cal. 2008)
  • Tenney v. General Elec. Co., 118 Ohio St. 3d 197, 887 N.E.2d 349 (2008)

Recognitions and Memberships

Recognitions

  • Ohio Super Lawyers "Rising Star" (2013 to 2019)

Memberships

  • American Bar Association
  • Ohio State Bar Association
  • Cleveland Bar Association

Emerging Issues

Prior Positions

  • Army JAG, 25th Infantry Department of Defense: Intern (Honolulu)

Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2009
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2010
  • U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 2006
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2006
  • U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2016
  • U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, 2017
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 2018
  • U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, 2019
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, 2019
  • Ohio, 2005

Education

  • J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 2005
  • B.A., Tiffin University, 2001

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Employment Class Action Blog
California District Court Releases Opinion Invalidating AB 51
By Gregory V. Mersol
February 11, 2020
Two Centuries of Federal Precedent Given Effect We’ve blogged several times the ongoing saga involving AB 51, California’s attempt to prevent the mandatory arbitration of employment claims largely by sanctioning employers who use such...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
California District Court Denies Certification of Off-the-Clock Case
February 6, 2020
We’ve commented in the past that off-the-clock cases can make poor candidates for class certification, particularly when the employer’s policies require that employees perform work only while clocked in. A recent case involving a...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
District Court Preliminarily Enjoins Enforcement of California's A.B. 51 Anti-Arbitration Law
By John B. Lewis, Joseph S. Persoff
February 3, 2020
Since Oct. 11, 2019, we have been blogging about California’s new anti-arbitration law and the injunctive action filed before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller to enjoin it. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
Employer's Profit-Sharing Plan Is Not Covered by ERISA, Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds
By Gilbert P. Brosky
July 2, 2019
One of the most fundamental, but often overlooked, defenses in ERISA litigation is that the plaintiff did not allege a violation of an actual ERISA plan. An at-issue document/provision cannot be an ERISA pension plan unless it provides...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
Location, Location, Location. Washington Federal Court Looks To Where Benefit Plan Was Signed And Negotiated In Agreeing To Transfer ERISA Class Action To Georgia
By Gilbert P. Brosky
June 4, 2019
Much like buying a home, location can mean everything when defending a class action. Therefore, it is common for defendants to try and transfer class actions to what is viewed as a more favorable jurisdiction when there is at least a...
Read More ->