Court Moves Forward Claim Employer Interfered with Health Benefits
January 22, 2010 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – A federal court has refused to
dismiss a claim by a Jersey Construction employee that he was fired for pursuing
health benefits for his wife's chemotherapy.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
said it found that Christian Pailleret stated sufficient facts to support a
prima facie case under § 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). The court said Pailleret had no "smoking gun" evidence of
intent, but the fact that almost immediately after he submitted medical claims
of tens of thousands of dollars, he was assigned low-level and
"degrading" tasks and shortly after that was terminated without
notice or explanation was sufficient to show a plausible claim and "to
thus unlock the doors of discovery."
The court rejected Jersey Construction's argument that
the only evidence of intent is proximity – or that the termination took place
shortly after Pailleret exercised his rights to health benefits.
According to the court opinion, Jersey Construction hired
Pailleret around October 2005 as a diesel mechanic, and within the first year
of his employment he received a raise based on good performance. Approximately
four months later, Pailleret’s wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, and he
immediately informed his supervisor of her diagnosis.
As a result of Pailleret wife’s surgeries, chemotherapy,
and subsequent treatment, he submitted reimbursement claims in the amount of
tens of thousands of dollars to the Jersey Construction, Inc. Employee Health
and Welfare Benefits Plan. Almost immediately afterwards Pailleret was assigned
various lower level, odd jobs that he had never before been asked to do - some
purportedly "onerous and beneath Mr. Pailleret’s skill level" and in "degrading"
work conditions the court said.
Pailleret alleged this was for the purpose of coercing
him to resign so his employer did not have to pay benefits. When he didn't
resign, sometime in 2007, he was terminated on the spot and instructed to leave
the premises immediately. His supervisor refused to give any details about the
reason for the termination. Pailleret had never received written warnings
before the termination.
The case is Pailleret
v. Jersey Construction Inc., D.N.J., No. 09-1325 (RBK/JS), 1/11/10.
Rebecca Moore
editors@plansponsor.com