Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 SEPTEMBER 2016

ERISA Section 510 Interference Claim Time Barred

Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Contributor
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Firm Overview Proskauer is an elite global law firm with more than 900 lawyers across key financial...

View firm profile
Explore more from Proskauer Rose LLP

A federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania recommended that a class action complaint claiming that AlliedBarton terminated certain employees to prevent them from reaching eligibility...

United StatesEmployment and HR

A federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania recommended that a class action complaint claiming that AlliedBarton terminated certain employees to prevent them from reaching eligibility for vacation benefits be dismissed as untimely.  Observing that ERISA section 510 does not provide a specific statute of limitations, the court determined that the most analogous state-law cause of action was one for wrongful discharge, which is subject to a two-year statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law.  Because plaintiff was terminated more than two years before bringing suit, the magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.  The case is Williams v. AlliedBarton Sec. Servs., 15-cv-1348,  (W.D. Pa., report and recommendation Aug. 22, 2016).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from