Mgmt 582 Case Study Essay

1075 Words Jul 19th, 2012 5 Pages
MGMT 582
Section 510 of ERISA Gives False Hope of Non Retaliation by Employers The Scenario is this; an Employee of one of the biggest hotel chains in the United States works in the Benefits section of the company. She finds a major flaw in the company’s benefits plan and brings it to the attention of Management. She was terminated and brought up a wrongful termination suit against Marriott. The Courts upheld the termination saying that Section 510 of ERISA did not protect the employee. This article argues that the employee should be protected when reporting internal violations voluntarily for three reasons. “(1) The protection of unsolicited internal complaints is consistent with congressional intent, (2) The text of
…show more content…
When it was determined by the courts that unsolicited internal complaints are not covered by 510, the courts are essentially letting employers stop a complaint before its made. This is a bad thing for the employees because it may encourage them not to report ERISA violations for fear of being terminated. “In summary, allowing protection of unsolicited internal complaints under section 510 of ERISA will further Congress's ultimate goal of protecting employee benefit plans and the employees who benefit from these plans by allowing for availability of the court system and remedies.” (29 USCS prec § 1001) The second reason is that “the text of section 510, as compared to other anti-retaliation provisions in other federal statutes, supports protection of unsolicited internal complaints”. Most courts have made a comparison in the language in 510 to other anti retaliation statutes including FLSA and Title VII. Peterson states that: “ERISA cannot usefully be compared to other anti-retaliation provisions when a court is attempting to determine the scope of 510; instead, the courts should look to congressional intent, the dictionary, and the Secretary of Labor's interpretations to decide that it does protect unsolicited internal complaints.” So essentially the author is saying that when the courts are looking at these cases they need not look at past rulings to help decide which way they are going to push the judgment. They

Related Documents