Shores v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 455 (4^th Cir. Jan. 13, 2000) (Unpublished)-Fifty-six former management employees filed suit against Lucent after they discovered that Lucent amended their benefit plan six months after their retirement to include a more generous benefits package for which they were not eligible.  The July 1997 amendments applied retroactively to January 1, 1997, just days after the employees’ retirement date of December 29, 1996.  The district court granted Lucent's motion for summary judgment on all counts and denied Appellants' partial motion for summary judgment.  This court affirmed on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to establish the elements for interference with their rights under ERISA § 510.  ERISA § 510 prevents an employer from "discharging ... a participant for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant becomes entitled under the plan."  29 U.S.C. §  1140.

Appellants failed to establish evidence necessary to infer discriminatory intent.  The facts showed that the temporal proximity of three days between the retirement date and the effective date of Plan amendments was only the result of "two courtesies extended by Lucent."  Lucent originally scheduled the appellant’s for retirement in November.  However, Lucent kept them on the payroll since their transition to employment under the new owner which did not begin until January.  Second, Lucent did not decide to amend the plan until July, 1997.  Lucent “generously” applied this change retroactively to the January 1, 1997 date.

Appellants argued that Lucent altered its policy regarding unused vacation time to prevent any of the appellants from pushing their retirement date into 1997.  Lucent's practice with regard to employees retiring on an individual basis had been to require them to use all accrued vacation days before retiring.  On November 15, 1996, however, Lucent sent a letter to Appellants stating that they would not be permitted to carry any vacation beyond December 29, 1996.  Instead, each Appellant received pay in lieu of any unused vacation time accrued as of December 29, 1996.

Using the abuse of discretion standard, this court found that Lucent’s proffered reason for this change (the desire not to pay an additional five weeks of vacation in 1997 for employees no longer in its service) was valid, and was not a pretextual attempt to deny ERISA benefits.  The personnel guide supported Lucent’s position.  The guide stated that Lucent reserved the right to determine an employee's last day on payroll, and that employees may "receive pay in lieu of unused approved carryover vacation from prior year and current year vacation."