Opinion ID: 592157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Anti-Discrimination Under ERISA

Text: 39 Bogue seeks alternative relief under ERISA's antidiscrimination provision; 34 he alleges that Ampex violated that law by urging Allied-Signal to deny his claim for severance pay. He would find proof of discrimination against him in Ampex's admission that it provided severance pay to several executives who resigned after the program had ended. The district court held that 29 U.S.C. § 1140 does not apply unless the employee is actively or constructively discharged. Bogue notes that the language of § 1140 is not so limited. This Court has considered his argument, however, and refuted it. 35 Bogue offers no evidence that he was discharged. 40 The district court correctly found that Bogue had voluntarily resigned. His allegations of payments made to other executives are irrelevant because § 1140 prevents discrimination only under the provisions of an employee benefit plan. It therefore does not apply to payments made voluntarily by Ampex after the program had terminated. The court also found, correctly, that Ampex's letter of recommendation to Allied-Signal was nothing more than a matter-of-fact description of the relationship between Ampex and plaintiff after Ampex's reorganization. Bogue's only legal support for his discrimination charge is the letter Ampex sent Allied-Signal. That charge was properly dismissed.