UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DARLA J. WILLS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:11-cv-717

JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

v. Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC.,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Honda of America Mfg., Inc.’s (“Honda”)

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s ERISA Discrimination Claim (ECF No. 7), Plaintiff Darla J. Wills’

Response in Opposition to Honda’s Motion to Dismiss ERISA Discrimination Claim (ECF No.

11), and Honda’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s ERISA Discrimination

Claim (ECF No. 13). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Honda’s motion.

I. Background

The facts in this section are taken from Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.) In

the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges three claims for relief: (1) termination in violation of

the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., (2) discrimination in violation of

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1140, and (3)

disability discrimination in violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.01, et

seq. Honda moves for dismissal only of Plaintiff’s ERISA claim.

Plaintiff was employed at Honda beginning in 1986 until she was terminated on June 27,

2011. Plaintiff alleges that some time prior to 2003, she was diagnosed with “chronic high blood

pressure” and has received treatment for that condition. (ECF No. 6 ¶ 6.) She further alleges

1

Case: 2:11-cv-00717-GLF-EPD Doc #: 17 Filed: 12/30/11 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
that such treatment has been paid for through Plaintiff’s medical benefits provided through her

employment with Honda and that Honda is fully self-insured for its employee medical benefits

plan and it[s] short-term disability plan. Id. ¶¶ 7-8.

Plaintiff alleges that she was falsely accused of having made a derogatory statement

about Defendant and that she was discharged for allegedly falsifying information in connection

with a day she took off of work. 

Plaintiff claims that she was discriminatorily discharged in violation of § 510 of ERISA

“due to her extensive and expensive use of [Honda]’s medical benefits plan, and the expected

continuation of such usage” and because Honda “perceived her, as a person with incurable

chronic high blood pressure for a significant period of time, as a significant risk to make greater

usage of its medical benefits plan.” Id. ¶¶ 27-28. Plaintiff further alleges that “[i]n discharging

her, [Honda] acted as much like an insurance company canceling a risky policy, as it acted like

an employer discharging an employee.” Id. ¶ 28. 

II. Standard

Honda moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s ERISA claim for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009)

(clarifying the plausibility standard articulated in Twombly). “A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. The factual

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00717-GLF-EPD Doc #: 17 Filed: 12/30/11 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
allegations of a pleading “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . .

.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “The court must ‘accept all the . . . factual allegations as true and

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff[].’ ” Louisville/Jefferson

County Metro Gov't v. Hotels.com, L.P., 590 F.3d 381, 384 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v.

Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009)).

III. Discussion

Under ERISA § 510, it is illegal for an employer to “discriminate against a participant or

beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee

benefit plan . . . or 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. Honda argues that it is

entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff’s ERISA claim because the claim is based on pure speculation,

not supported by any factual allegations. This Court agrees.

In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege enough factual details to

permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of discrimination. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at

1950) (“But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere

possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged -- but it has not ‘show[n]’ -- ‘that the

pleader is entitled to relief.’ ”) (quoting Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2)). Plaintiff’s allegations boil

down to the following: (1) she had been using Honda’s benefit plans since 2003 for her chronic

high blood pressure and would likely have continued to use the plan in the future; (2) Honda has

a self insured health and short term disability plan; and (3) she was terminated. From these

allegations the Court cannot infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct, which is

insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00717-GLF-EPD Doc #: 17 Filed: 12/30/11 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
As a practical matter, if such allegations were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss,

then any employee who utilizes her employer’s self-insured benefit plans and who is ultimately

terminated could bring an ERISA discrimination claim on the theory that the employer “may”

have been motivated by a desire to reduce its medical benefits costs. See Perrmann v. CF

Industries, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-633, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92525, *7 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (if ERISA

liability were to arise under such facts, “then any employer who provides ERISA benefits would

face an ERISA § 510 discrimination claim every time the employer fired a participant employee,

no matter the reason for the termination.”); see also Estate of Suskovich v Anthem Health Plans

of Va., Inc., 1:06-CV-0425-SEB-JMS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29071, 41 Employee Benefits Cas.

(BNA) 1308 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2007) (similar allegations insufficient to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted under § 510 of ERISA).

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Honda’s Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s ERISA Discrimination Claim. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff’s other two claims remain

pending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Gregory L. Frost

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4

Case: 2:11-cv-00717-GLF-EPD Doc #: 17 Filed: 12/30/11 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>