July 2003 Quick Clips

No ERISA Preemption for Wrongful Discharge Claim, July 30, 2003

The Fourth Circuit has held that ERISA does not completely preempt a former employee's claim that she was wrongfully discharged in violation of Maryland law when she complained about her supervisor's proposal to transfer money out of the employer's health plan. King v. Marriott Int'l Inc., No. 02-2139 (4th Cir. July 28, 2003). King worked in Marriott International Inc.'s benefits department, In 1999 and again in 2000, King learned that her supervisor had recommended the transfer of millions of dollars from the Company's employee health plan to the company's general corporate reserve account. Both times King told her supervisor that she believed the transfer would violate ERISA. Soon after she complained the second time, King was fired.

King sued in state court, wrongful discharge in violation of Maryland law. Marriott removed the case to federal court on ERISA preemption grounds, and the District Court granted summary judgment to Marriott, holding that the wrongful discharge claim was preempted by ERISA. The Fourth Circuit vacated that decision and remanded the case to state court, holding that ERISA's anti-retaliation provision provided no protection to King. ERISA Section 510 prohibits employers from, among other things, discharging employees who give information or testify "in any inquiry or proceeding" under ERISA. The Court found that King had no cause of action under ERISA because there was no "inquiry or proceeding" involved in her complaint. Instead, King had merely made intra-company complaints to her supervisor.

Whether King will now prevail in state court is another matter entirely. In Maryland, being fired for complaining to a supervisor that some proposed act may violate the law is not typically a wrongful discharge. At the same time, an employee who is fired for refusing to commit an act that is illegal will typically have a claim or wrongful discharge.

Motivation and Willingness to Do Job Found Essential, July 7, 2003

by Frank L. Kollman

A federal court has refused to accept the claims of a blind worker that he was the victim of disability discrimination. The court found, correctly, that the employee was not qualified to do the work, not because of his disability, but because of his unwillingness to do the work. The employee, in addition to having a disability, had a level of belligerence and work ethic that made it unlikely that he would perform his work. Even protected workers are expected to follow instructions and try to do their best. Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, No. 02-C-0405-C (W.D. Wis. June 26, 2003).

Kollman & Saucier, P.A., The Business Law Building, 1823 York Road, Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: 410-727-4300
Fax: 410-727-4391 © 1999 - 2010 Kollman & Saucier, P.A. All rights reserved.
Website maintained by Armistead Technologies, Llc.^tm