A federal district court in Illinois held that participants in a multiemployer pension plan failed to plausibly allege that plan fiduciaries retaliated against them in violation of ERISA § 510 by refusing to consider their employer’s offer to settle its withdrawal liability to the plan. In lieu of paying withdrawal liability, the employer offered to
ERISA § 510
ERISA Implications for Firing A Whistleblower
The Ninth Circuit unanimously concluded that a trustee and lawyer for certain multiemployer funds violated ERISA § 510 by unlawfully firing a whistleblower in the funds’ collections department, but, in a split decision, concluded that the retaliation did not amount to a breach of fiduciary duty. The whistleblower was cooperating with a DOL criminal investigation…
ERISA Section 510 Interference Claim Time Barred
A federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania recommended that a class action complaint claiming that AlliedBarton terminated certain employees to prevent them from reaching eligibility for vacation benefits be dismissed as untimely. Observing that ERISA section 510 does not provide a specific statute of limitations, the court determined that the most analogous state-law cause of action…
Court Declines to Decide Whether ERISA Protects Employee From Reprisal For Informal Complaint
A federal court in Missouri was asked to determine whether a former employee proved a viable claim for retaliation under ERISA Section 510 by virtue of being terminated after she sent emails disparaging the company’s owner and protesting certain actions. As applicable here, Section 510 prohibits employers from terminating an employee “because he has given…
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Section 510 Claim
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on summary judgment of Plaintiff Rosemarie Cole’s claim that her employer, Permanente Medical Group, interfered with her receipt of pension benefits in violation of ERISA § 510. In so ruling, the Court explained that even if Cole established a prima facie case of discrimination under § 510 – by…
District Court Allows ERISA Section 510 Retaliation Claim to Proceed
A federal district court in Pennsylvania concluded that Irene Najmola, a former employee of Chester County Hospital, sufficiently pled a retaliation claim under ERISA section 510 by alleging that her employment was terminated shortly after returning from short-term disability leave. In so ruling, the court determined that Najmola sufficiently pled that defendant had the specific…
Sixth Circuit: ERISA’s Whistleblower Provision Doesn’t Protect Giving Information
The Sixth Circuit (in a 2-1 decision) recently held that ERISA Section 510 does not protect unsolicited employee complaints. See Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8752 (6th Cir. May 9, 2014). Plaintiff Brian Sexton worked as a general manager for defendant Panel Processing and also served as a trustee for…
The View From Proskauer: Health Care Reform Litigation Risks —The Intersection of ERISA Section 510 and the Affordable Care Act’s Whistleblower Provisions
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is significantly changing employer health care obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Prior to ACA, the Supreme Court held that ERISA did not require employers to offer any level or type of welfare benefits, such as health care benefits. Now that ACA has passed constitutional muster, effective 2014, employers with more than 50 full-time employees will be required to provide “affordable” health care coverage to their full-time employees or face financial penalties. Because the penalties are calculated based on the number of full-time employees, employers should carefully examine the legal risks of realigning their workforces to minimize the use of full-time employees in favor of employees whose status would not trigger ACA’s coverage mandate. This article discusses the ACA whistleblower and ERISA Section 510 claims that might arise from such workforce restructurings or other attempts by employers to avoid ACA’s coverage requirements and corresponding tax penalties.
Sixth Circuit Rules Plaintiff Failed to Prove Specific Intent Required Under ERISA Section 510
In Gaglioti v. Levin Group, Inc., No. 11–3744, 2012 WL 6217365 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2012), the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment dismissing ERISA Section 510 and disability discrimination claims, but reversed as to age discrimination claims. Upon hiring, Plaintiff was immediately given health benefits. A few months later, shortly after disclosing health problems…