Opinion ID: 2981542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prima Facie Case of ERISA Interference

Text: To make out a claim of interference with benefits guaranteed under ERISA, the plaintiff must show “(1) prohibited employer conduct (2) taken for the purpose of interfering (3) with the attainment of any right to which the employee may become entitled.” Humphreys, 996 F.2d at 1043. The district court found that Gaglioti met his prima facie case, relying on the temporal proximity between the firing and the submission of the insurance questionnaire (which, at least potentially, could have led to significantly greater health insurance costs) to provide an inference of improper employer conduct. However, in order to make out a prima face case of ERISA interference, the Plaintiff must allege that the employer “had a specific intent to violate ERISA.” Id. (quoting Rush v. United Technologies, Otis Elevator Div., 930 F.2d 453, 457 (6th Cir. 1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Unlike with the age discrimination and ADA claims, where inferences of discrimination are sufficient to meet the burden at the prima face stage, Gaglioti must point to specific evidence that shows that the desire to reduce medical costs motivated his termination. No such evidence exists in the record. As mentioned previously, the district court found that “Pursley 2 Gaglioti also raised an association discrimination claim under Ohio R.C. § 4112.02(A). The district court granted summary judgment on this claim, holding that the statute does not provide for an association claim. Assuming arguendo that the statute does provide this cause of action, see Cole v. Seafare Enterp. Ltd., Inc., No. C-950157, 1996 WL 60970, at  (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 14, 1996), any claim under R.C. § 4112.02(A) would face the same difficulties at the prima face stage as the ADA claim. Therefore, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to that claim on the merits, and take no position on whether R.C. § 4112.02(A) applies to association discrimination claims. - 16 - No. 11-3744 Gaglioti v. Levin Group, Inc. and Levin never had a conversation with other employees or Plaintiff that the company was concerned with health care costs.” Thus, Gaglioti’s claim that he was fired in response to the fear of higher health care costs is entirely inferential, and not sufficiently supported by specific evidence to make out a prima facie case of ERISA interference. Therefore, we also affirm the grant of summary judgment to Levin Group on Gaglioti’s ERISA interference claim.