# William J. Kross v. Western Electric Company, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · March 9, 1983 · 701 F.2d 1238

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470373

## Case

- **Full name:** William J. KROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** March 9, 1983
- **Citations:** 701 F.2d 1238; 4 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1265; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29821
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bonsal
- **Judges:** Bauer, Coffey, Bonsal
- **Cited by:** 212 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Modified by Charles DALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, 797 F.2d 458 (1986).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470373

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that "[plaintiff's] allegations state a claim under § 510 of ERISA since such allegations, if proven, might establish that [plaintiff] was discharged for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of a right under the insurance plans."
- concluding that “[plaintiff’s] allegations state a claim under § 510 of ERISA since such allegations, if proven, might establish that [plaintiff] was discharged for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of a right under the insur‐ ance plans.”
- holding that administrative exhaustion is required for a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 brought under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)
- rejecting the “novel theory” that once an employee has qualified for participation in a benefit plan, he can attain no increased right under that plan through additional years of employment
- explaining the policy concerns that underlie the discretionary, court-adopted exhaustion rule for ERISA claims

## Opinion text

BONSAL, Senior District Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the majority’s opinion affirming the district court with respect to plaintiff’s claim under the pension plan. However, I dissent from the majority’s remand *1247 to the district court for further proceedings in connection with the company-provided life and medical insurance policies. There is no evidence to support even an inference that Western Electric discharged Kross for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any rights to which he might become entitled under these policies. Therefore, I see no reason to burden the district court with further proceedings and would affirm its decision in all respects.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470373. Public record. Not legal advice.