Opinion ID: 739296
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims under ERISA

Text: 28 The district court also granted summary judgment dismissing Lightfoot's claim under ERISA. Section 510 of ERISA provides that [i]t shall be unlawful for any person to discharge ... a participant or beneficiary [of 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. There is, however, no cause of action under section 510 where the loss of pension benefits was a mere consequence of, but not a motivating factor behind, a termination of employment. Dister v. Continental Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108, 1111 (2d Cir.1988). To defeat summary judgment Lightfoot had to adduce some evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Carbide terminated his employment with the intent to reduce his pension benefits. 29 Although Lightfoot's complaint alleged a pattern or practice of age discrimination in employment intended to deprive older ... employees of opportunity to optimize the benefits available to them, he has come forward with no specific facts to support this allegation. He argues on appeal that pre-termination discrimination against him must have resulted from Carbide's desire to interfere with his pension benefits because it had that effect. This is a textbook illustration of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. See Dister, 859 F.2d at 1117 n. 1 ([M]ere cost savings and proximity to benefits are [in]sufficient ... to create a genuine issue of fact requiring a trial); Humphreys v. Bellaire Corp., 966 F.2d 1037, 1044 (6th Cir.1992) (citing Dister ). Where an employee's ERISA claim is based only on a claim that the employee has been deprived of the opportunity to accrue additional benefits through more years of employment, a prima facie case requires some additional evidence suggesting that pension interference might have been a motivating factor. Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp., 901 F.2d 335, 348 (3d Cir.1990). Lightfoot has presented no such evidence, and summary judgment was appropriate.