ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Washington Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: Washington Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Law

Another Court Allows ???Benefits Interference??? Claim for Terminated Employee

By Donald W. Heyrich

ADVERTISEMENTS

Healthcarealignment01 We reported last month on the decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Dewitt v. Proctor Hospital in which the court allowed a claim by a plaintiff who contended that she was fired because of her husband???s high medical bills.  In a similar case decided this week, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed a claim for ???interference with employee benefits.???

In Fitzgerald v. Action, Inc., Danny Fitzgerald told his employer that he was scheduled to have surgery.  A short time later, he was terminated due to ???lack of work.???  Fitzgerald contended that he was terminated "to prevent him from receiving his healthcare insurance benefits" in violation of ?? 510 of ERISA.  After Fitzgerald challenged the termination, the employer asserted that Fitzgerald abused restroom privileges and breaks.  Fitzgerald argued that this was a change from the stated ???lack of work??? reason at the time of the termination. 

Section 510 of ERISA makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge a participant in an employee benefit plan "for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan."  29 U.S.C. ?? 1140.   To establish a claim for a violation of ?? 510, a plaintiff must show that the employer had a specific intent to interfere with the employee???s benefits, which may be shown by circumstantial evidence.

The court analyzed Fitzgerald???s case under the McDonnell Douglas framework and concluded that he produced sufficient evidence to show that misconduct may not have been the true impetus behind his termination, but rather a pretext for interfering with his insurance benefits.  The evidence supporting pretext included: (1) the employer's inconsistent explanations for the termination; (2) the employer's failure to follow company policy; (3) more lenient treatment of another employee; and (4) the temporal proximity between when Fitzgerald notified his employer of his surgery and his termination.   A copy of the decision can be read here.

Full post as published by Washington Labor, Employment & Employee Benefits Law on April 22, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0244 secs (new cache)