holding that a “company policy which forced an employee to choose between losing his job for the exercise of his rights under ERISA-protected benefits or keeping his job and forcing him to give up his benefits would be essentially unfair or ‘a quintessential Hob-son’s choice’ ”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a “company policy which forced an employee to choose between losing his job for the exercise of his rights under ERISA-protected benefits or keeping his job and forcing him to give up his benefits would be essentially unfair or ‘a quintessential Hob-son’s choice’ ”
- holding summary judgment properly granted on Section 510 claim where defendant argued it terminated employee for excessive absenteeism and tardiness
- “[I]t is unnecessary for this Court to determine whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case where a defendant has advanced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.”
- “To prove a violation of [§ 1140], plaintiffs must establish more than a loss of benefits; they must demonstrate that their employers terminated them with the specific intent of preventing or retaliating for the use of benefits.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROVNER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in nearly every respect with the majority, but I write separately because I am concerned about the proliferation of policies like that of the defendant, which can be very confusing to workers. The majority praises Mobil’s policy as making “good business sense.” Ante at 299. To be sure, under the law of this circuit, Mobil is entitled to enforce its so-called “no-fault” attendance policy as well as its short term disability policy. Although this probably sounds like legal hairsplitting to nonlawyers, Mobil is entitled to pay workers for days when they are absent from work due to illness, and then terminate them for being excessively absent. It may do so while terming the absences “approved” under the disability policy. Mobil may have had the right to terminate Lindemann for insubordination, but that is not what occurred here. Thus, her alleged comments to her supervisor are not at issue here. I agree with the result the majority reaches, but I believe that whether Mobil’s policy makes “good business sense” is not an issue properly before the Court.