Walsh v. United Parcel Service, 201 F.3d 718 (6^th Cir. 2000); 2000 FED App. 0007P (6th Cir.)-Walsh, a former management pilot for UPS, claimed that he was wrongly discharged in violation of §  510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §  1140, after he went on disability leave in 1993 due to complications stemming from an earlier car accident.  This court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of UPS on all claims.

The district court rejected defendant's initial argument that it should dismiss plaintiff's ERISA § 510 claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  But, it did agree that plaintiff had failed to state a prima facie case.  The court found that plaintiff had produced no evidence showing it was defendant's specific intent to fire plaintiff to prevent him from receiving long-term disability benefits.  Further, the court found that even if the plaintiff did present a prima facie case, UPS had articulated a reasonable non-discriminatory grounds for terminating plaintiff--his failure to provide medical information concerning his eligibility for continued leave.

In Smith v. Ameritech, 129 F.3d 857 (6th Cir. 1997); 1997 FED App. 0343P (6th Cir.), this Circuit laid out the framework for analyzing an ERISA § 510 claim, providing:  "To state a claim under § 510, the plaintiff must show that an employer had a specific intent to violate ERISA. In the absence of direct evidence of such discriminatory intent, the plaintiff can state a prima facie case by showing the existence of (1) prohibited employer conduct (2) taken for the purpose of interfering (3) with the attainment of any right to which the employee may become entitled."

In his attempt to establish a prima facie case of a § 510 violation, plaintiff referred to facts that he believed raised an inference of deliberate wrongful conduct.  First, he pointed out that defendant knew that it was faced with a long-term disability claim after he had made inquiries and requests for forms. Second, defendant had gone so far as to estimate the cost of a long-term disability claim to the company.  When combined with the timing of his firing, plaintiff contended that these raised an inference of discriminatory motive.

Defendant’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for the termination, which this court accepted, was that Walsh failed to respond for over 6 months to requests for medical information.  Plaintiff argued that his failure to provide information was insufficient to warrant dismissal because it was not willful.  The court found this irrelevant, since the question was not whether it was fair for defendant to terminate him, but only whether plaintiff's conduct gave defendant a sufficient non-discriminatory reason for termination.

To successfully show that a termination was motivated by impermissible considerations, rather than the non-discriminatory reasons advanced by the employer, an employee must come forward with evidence other than that used to established his or her prima facie case.  Accordingly, plaintiff failed to show that UPS's legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating him was pretextual.