• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
Employee Benefits Law Group

Employee Benefits Law Group

Guidance. More than just Legal Advice.

  • What We Do
    • ESOPs
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Retirement Plans
    • Equity & Executive Compensation
    • Health & Welfare Plans
  • Our Team
  • Resources
  • Contact
Employee Benefits Law Group
Home > Resources > Retirement Plans > ERISA Section 510 Claims

ERISA Section 510 Claims

April 9, 2024 by Kevin Long

ERISA section 510 makes it unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled or may become entitled under an ERISA plan. It also makes it unlawful to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, or discriminate against any person because he has given information or has or is about to testify in any ERISA-related inquiry or proceeding.

Section 510 claims  can come as part of a general wrongful discharge claim, age discrimination claim, or a whistleblower action where the employee also alleges the employer attempted to interfere with ERISA-protected rights.

Consider, for example, an employee with a family member who has high healthcare expenses due to a chronic illness. These expenses are covered by the employer’s self-insured or partially self-insured health plan. The employee is over age 55. With perhaps less than perfect attention to management protocols, he is discharged for poor performance. The employee may allege his discharge was driven by the employer’s desire to reduce its health plan costs.

Consider also an employee, or a group of employees, terminated just prior to vesting in the company’s pension plan. There may be allegations that the termination was due to the employer’s desire to reduce pension costs. Again, an ERISA section 510 claim is a likely addition to other claims.

ERISA provides plan amendment and termination procedures that can generally be used to eliminate or reduce plan costs. However, actions that circumvent these procedures, such as discriminating on the basis of the use or potential use of plan benefits, may constitute an ERISA section 510 violation.

ERISA Section 502: The Muscle Behind Section 510

ERISA section 502 is the enforcement provision for ERISA section 510 violations, under which participants and beneficiaries may bring claims to recover benefits due under the terms of the plan, enjoin any act that violates ERISA, or obtain other appropriate equitable relief. Such relief may include reinstatement to the individual’s former position. ERISA does not provide punitive or compensatory damages. Because section 502 provides only equitable relief, monetary damages are not available under this provision. However, in certain circuits, back pay may be an available form of restitution, and there is a good chance that a successful plaintiff will be awarded attorney’s fees and costs.

The Burden of Proof

The burden of proof and order of production of evidence in ERISA section 510 actions are generally governed by either the Price Waterhouse “mixed motives” analysis or the McDonnell Douglas “pretext” analysis that are used in employment discrimination claims.

A Price Waterhouse analysis is used when the plaintiff presents direct evidence such as conduct or statements by decision-makers reflecting a discriminatory attitude that more likely than not influenced the decision to terminate the employee. The defendant employer then has the burden to prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that it would have made the same decision absent the alleged discrimination.

To illustrate a Price Waterhouse analysis, consider a long-term employee whose spouse develops a chronic illness. The spouse is employed and covered by her employer’s health plan. Prior to the employee’s termination, his supervisor (who works closely with the benefits personnel) asks him about the treatments that his spouse is undergoing, how long he expects the illness to persist, and whether his spouse will continue working for her employer. After he is terminated, the employee brings an ERISA section 510 claim, alleging that his employer was concerned the spouse would become eligible under the company’s self-insured health plan. The employer must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have terminated the employee absent the alleged discrimination.

Of course, many employers are too savvy to make comments reflecting an attitude to discriminate on the basis of ERISA-protected benefits. As a result, plaintiffs must often present circumstantial evidence to establish discrimination. This brings into play a McDonnell Douglas analysis.

To illustrate a McDonnell Douglas analysis, consider a high-paid employee who worked for his employer for two and a half years. His employer’s pension plan uses a three-year cliff vesting schedule (i.e., participants with less than three years of employment are 0% vested and those with three years or more are fully vested in the plan). The benefits are based on years of employment and compensation. Greater benefits accrue to those with higher salaries. Despite having better performance appraisals than a co-worker, who performs a similar job, the employee is the one discharged when the company decides to eliminate a position in his work unit. Unlike the employee, the co-worker has been employed for just over three years and is fully vested in the plan.

The employee alleges an ERISA section 510 violation. He claims that his discharge was motivated, in part, by the employer’s desire to prevent his vesting and thereby avoid the cost associated with his pension benefits. After the employer articulates a legitimate reason for the discharge, the employee must prove by the preponderance of evidence that the employer’s true motivation was to prevent vesting.

Evidentiary Considerations

In nearly all cases, the key issue will be the causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. To establish the causal connection, it may be useful to consider the following evidence.

Evidence relevant to both health plans and pension plans is a matter of who said what:

  • The identity of the individuals who made the decision to terminate the employee and whether they are those typically involved in such decisions. If those who made the decision are not typically involved in such decisions, and they have access to benefit plan information, this may suggest the decision was related to plan benefits.
  • The data the company monitors when evaluating the cost and feasibility of its benefit plans. Monitoring individual-level data may indicate the company may be motivated to treat employees differently based on their benefit expense.
  • Correspondence related to the decision to terminate the employee and such other evidence relevant to most discrimination claims.
  • Some of the evidence relevant to an employer provided health plan includes:
  • The identity of personnel who administer the plan and who have access to participant benefit information.
  • The decision-makers’:
    • Knowledge of or perception of the employee’s health care expenses or the expenses of covered family members.
    • Access to and concern with health expense information.
  • How closely the company monitors each participant’s health expenses, whether the company forecasts individual future health expenses or analyzes data in the aggregate, and to whom this information is reported.
  • The trajectory of the company’s health care expenses. If the company’s health costs were relatively stable, or increasing in a moderate and stable trajectory over time, this may indicate that health costs did not influence the decision to terminate the employee.
  • If the termination was part of a larger reduction in force, other employees’ health expenses may suggest whether or not these expenses were a factor. If there is no correlation, or a weak correlation, between health expense and the decision to retain or dismiss the employee, this may indicate health expenses were not a factor.
  • Whether there was a precipitous increase in the employee’s health expenses.

Evidence related to pension plans can include:

  • The identity of personnel who administer the plan and who have access to participant benefit information.
  • The decision-makers’ knowledge of:
    • Pension plan provisions.
    • (Or perception of) the employee’s salary, benefit accrual and vesting status.
  • How closely the company monitors each participant’s pension benefit accruals, the employer associated cost, and to whom this information is reported.
  • Whether the company forecasts each participant’s pension benefits or analyzes the data in the aggregate.
  • The trajectory of the company’s pension obligations. If the company has many employees who are not vested, and will soon face a large pool of vested participants, this may indicate a desire to reduce or avoid this expense.
  • The benefit accrual and vesting status of the terminated employee or employees vis-a-vis employees who were retained by the company. This may indicate whether pension obligations were a salient factor in dismissing some employees but not others.
  • The vesting schedule used and the employee’s benefit accrual and vesting status. A termination just before the employee vests on a 3-year cliff vesting schedule may suggest different motivations than a dismissal made on a graded-vesting schedule.
  • Whether the company has previously adapted to rising costs by amending the plan to reduce future pension benefit accruals. This would indicate a familiarity with lawful procedure to reduce pension costs.

A full version of this article was published in Bloomberg BNA ERISA — Litigation, Procedure, Preemption and Other Title I Issues (Portfolio 374) (November 17, 2009).

Updated April 9, 2024

Filed Under: Retirement Plans Tagged With: Blog

About Kevin Long

Kevin has personally worked on every one of our 400 ESOP cases. Designing new ESOPs or assuring sustainability for existing ESOPs, he guides companies to achieve goals with their benefit plans in a tax-advantaged manner while incentivizing their employees to greater productivity.
Learn More About Kevin

EDITOR’S NOTE: We did the best we could to make sure the information and advice in this article were current as of the date of posting to the web site. Because the laws and the government’s rules are changing all the time, you should check with us if you are unsure whether this material is still current. Of course, none of our articles are meant to serve as specific legal advice to you. If you would like that, please call us at (916) 357-5660.

Recent Retirement Plans Posts

Controlled Group or Affiliated Service Group? What That Means for Your 401(k) Plan Compliance

Form 5500: The Role of the Accountant and the Audit Report

Coverage Rules For 401(k)’s and Other Qualified Plans – Part 3. Average Benefit Test and the Minimum Participation Rule

Don’t Miss Out! Subscribe

We cover all things employee benefits law.

Privacy Policy

We never share your info.

Let’s Start a Conversation

Have questions about your current benefit plan? Want to know what your benefit plan options are? Whatever your need, we’re here to help. Fill out a hassle-free request form, and one of our team members will follow up to get you on the path to success.

Get In Touch

Footer

Our experienced team guides you in all aspects of ESOPs, M&A due diligence, retirement plans, equity / compensation, and health and welfare benefits.
Sacramento Office
916-357-5660
11231 Gold Express Dr.
Suite 108
Gold River, CA 95670
San Jose Office
408-467-3860
2033 Gateway Place
Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95110
Phoenix Office
2550 W. Union Hills Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85027
Los Angeles Office
310-571-8896
10880 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 1101
Los Angeles, CA
90024
San Diego Office
916-357-5660
550 West B Street
San Diego, CA 92101
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

Copyright © 2025 Employee Benefits Law Group · Privacy Policy · Site Design by Delos Incorporated