Employee Fired for Plan Inquiry Awarded
Damages
November 17, 2006 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The US
District Court for the District of Minnesota has awarded
damages and attorney's fees to a former Midwest Telephone
Sales & Service, Inc. employee who claimed she was fired
for questioning her employer about company match
contributions for her SIMPLE IRA plan account.
In its
opinion
, the court determined Roseanne Cauley Simons provided
sufficient evidence that her firing was retaliatory in
violation of Section 510 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA). The court pointed out that
Simons' supervisor, Frank Bagot Sr., admitted he had
no intention of firing Simons when he went to work on the
day he received a note from her pointing out that no
employer contributions had ever been made to her account
and asking when the contributions would be made.
The court rejected the defendants' argument
that Simons' informal inquiry was not a protected right
under ERISA, citing a previous court ruling that ERISA
provides employees the right to inform plan
administrators of suspected violations of the statute.
Simons had been told by a financial planner that the
company was required by law to make matching
contributions to her account. Therefore, her letter
pointed out a suspected ERISA violation, according to the
opinion.
Midwest
and Bagot told the court the company already had plans to
lay off Simons in July 2004 due to company finances and her
poor work performance, but disparaging remarks she made to
Bagot in a conversation about her note advanced her
termination to that particular day in May 2004. The court
ruled there was no evidence this was true, as there was
never a discussion with Simons concerning her performance
while she worked at the company and there was no record of
poor performance by Simons in her employee file.
Simons' damage award included $1,456.55 for unpaid
employer contributions and $16,840.52 for lost wages and
benefits.
A previous ruling on the case (See
Different Retaliation Claims Warrant
Different Court Conclusions
) said Bagot asked Simons why she left a letter instead
of confronting him directly about the contributions and
she replied that she wanted everything to be in writing
because she did not trust him. In that decision, the
court decided the evidence created "a genuine
issue for trial" and denied a motion for summary
judgment by Simons. In addition, the court said Bagot,
and not the company, could be held liable for the alleged
retaliation since he was the one who fired Simons.
Rebecca Moore
editors@plansponsor.com