Case Name: Luz VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. ZENITH TRAVEL, INC.; McCord Travel Management; McCord Travel Management Employees Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-11
Citations: 14 F. App'x 97
Docket Number: No. 00-9459
Parties: Luz VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. ZENITH TRAVEL, INC.; McCord Travel Management; McCord Travel Management Employees Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 14
Pages: 97–98

Head Matter:
Luz VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. ZENITH TRAVEL, INC.; McCord Travel Management; McCord Travel Management Employees Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
No. 00-9459.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 11, 2001.
Anne C. Vladeck, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C., New York, NY, for appellant.
William G. Miossi, Winston & Strawn, New York, NY, for appellee.
Present MINER, LEVAL, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Luz Vasquez appeals from a grant of summary judgment dismissing her claim that she was illegally discharged in retaliation for making inquiries about her § 401(k) plan balance, in violation of § 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1140. She contends, inter alia, that summary judgment was inappropriate because a reasonable factfinder could have found that she was terminated because of those inquiries.
We reject Vasquez's argument. Vasquez's former employer made a strong showing that it discharged Vasquez because it wanted to automate most of the functions that she performed and because it wanted to hire a staff accountant supervisor. Vasquez did not produce evidence that would permit a reasonable factfinder to find that she was dismissed in retaliation for her inquiries relating to her § 401 (k) plan balance.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.