Appellate Law

CA1: specific intent required in ERISA retaliation claim

By S. COTUS

Kouvchinov v. Parametric Technological Corporation, No. 07-2395 (8/8/08).  This is an ERISA retaliation claim.  The plaintiff claimed that his employer retaliated against him for using his short-term disability benefits.  The claim came the day before a layoff was to take effect.  While he was receiving the benefit, he looked for, and found work at a company that was contracted with his first employer to do the same work he had been doing.  Then his first employer found out and got all mad and stuff.  He sued under ERISA and for tortious interference.  The plaintiff claims that under 29 U.S.C. § 1140, specific intent to interfere with ERISA benefits need not be shown.  Selya, of course, rejects this saying that would turn ever ERISA claim into a retaliation claim.  And, looking at the facts, there appears to be no such intent.  And, because there was no interference, the tortious interference claim fails, too., t

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on August 09, 2008 (boomark / email).