Case ID: f-appx_609/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosemarie COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant.
    No. 13-15952.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 11, 2015.
    
    Filed July 1, 2015.
    Steven M. Fink, Esquire, Mesirow & Fink, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant:
    David Bruce Anderson, Marion’s Inn LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendant>-Appel-lee.
    Before: CHRISTEN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rosemarie Cole appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of The Permanente Medical Group on Cole’s claim that Permanente terminated her employment in violation of § 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

ERISA § 510 provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person 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. The district court concluded that Cole established a prima facie ease of discrimination under § 510 because she was discharged 18 months before she would have been entitled to additional benefits under her pension plan. Even if she established a prima facie case, Cole’s claim fails because Per-manente articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Cole. See Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454, 456-57 (9th Cir.1995) (applying burden shifting analysis applicable to Title VII and ADEA claims to claim brought under § 510 of ERISA). Cole was terminated because she knowingly violated Per-manente’s confidentiality policy by accessing her then-husband’s medical records 12 times and another person’s records more than once. Cole did not present any evidence that showed Permanente’s articulated motive for terminating her was pretext for a discriminatory motive. See id. Cole did not present evidence that the person who made the decision to terminate her employment was aware that the termination would reduce Cole’s pension benefits or disqualify Cole from any benefits.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.