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
ERISA Section 510
District Court Allows ERISA Section 510 Retaliation Claim to Proceed
By Tulio Chirinos on
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
By Todd Mobley on
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
By Brian Neulander & James Napoli on
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…