CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ANN WATKINS; JAMES ULICNY, for themselves and others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 17-3032
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 3:16-cv-01925—James G. Carr, District Judge.
Argued: October 10, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 8, 2017
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; ROGERS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Chief Judge. This is a too-familiar story. For almost 40 years, Honeywell International (or its predecessors) operated a manufacturing plant in Fostoria, Ohio. Many union workers, including Ann Watkins and James Ulicny, spent most of their working years at the plant. They retired at a time when Honeywell promised in a collective-bargaining agreement that it would pay for their health insurance. But Honeywell’s plans for Fostoria changed. When the final agreement expired in 2011, Honeywell did not renew it. It sold the plant and, later, stopped paying for its retirees’ healthcare. Those retirees, no doubt feeling like the rug had been pulled out from under them, filed suit seeking to require Honeywell to continue to pay. The district court found that Honeywell’s promise to pay for healthcare ended when the agreement expired and dismissed the suit. The agreement promises healthcare “for the duration of this Agreement,” and this promise means exactly that: Honeywell’s obligation to pay for its Fostoria retirees’ healthcare ended when the agreement expired. We affirm.