Firing an employee for extensive use of medical benefits can prove very costly for the employer, who may be liable for such a claim even if the worker’s claims of other types of discrimination fail.
In Kairys v. Southern Pines, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed judgement in favor of a plaintiff on an ERISA Section 510 retaliation claim, despite an advisory jury verdict finding against the plaintiff on that claim. ERISA Section 510 forbids an employer from taking adverse employment action against employees as a result of, or to prevent, their exercising their rights under ERISA. Such claims were more frequent in the past in circumstances where employees were discharged shortly before they were to vest in their retirement benefits. More recently, retaliation has been claimed where employees or their dependents incurred significant medical expenses that were to be paid by their employers.
