Cole v. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 5:11-cv-05378

Cole worked as an Advice Nurse for TPMG since 1996 and was terminated in November 2010 for alleged confidentiality policy violations.
Cole accessed TPMG’s CIPS system for her husband and a former member on multiple dates, though no calls were on the Dedicated Line at those times.
TPMG argued the termination was based on a knowing violation of policy and lack of credible explanations for accessing third-party records.
Cole claimed termination was to interfere with future ERISA pension benefits (Section 510), with retirement rights vesting in 2012.
Administrative proceedings found Cole had accessed her husband’s records at his request and possibly other records by error, and whether that constitutes misconduct was considered.
The court analyzed whether Cole could prove a prima facie ERISA §510 claim and whether TPMG’s stated reason was pretext for discriminatory motive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cole establishes a prima facie ERISA §510 claim	Cole argues proximity to vesting shows intent to interfere	TPMG contends termination was for policy violations, not intent to interfere	Prima facie established; proximity supports inferred intent
Whether TPMG's reason for termination is legitimate and nondiscriminatory	Evidence shows pretext and selective discipline	Reason: policy violations in accessing records; legitimate nondiscriminatory basis	TPMG's reason accepted as legitimate, not pretextual
Whether Cole proves pretext sufficient to overcome TPMG's legitimate reason	Disparate treatment and timing suggest pretext	No evidence of discriminatory animus; record supports policy violation finding	Pretext not shown; evidence insufficient to create material fact dispute
Whether proximity alone could sustain pretext at summary judgment	Eighteen-month proximity supports inference of intent	Proximity is insufficient to prove pretext, especially with policy-based termination	Eighteen-month proximity inadequate to establish pretext; no triable issue

Dytrt v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 921 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1990) (state-of-mind evidence requires Burdine/McDonnell Douglas framework)
Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1995) (prima facie case framework for ERISA §510)
Humphreys v. Bellaire Corp., 966 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1992) (proximity can support inference of intentional discrimination)
Dister v. Continental Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108 (2d Cir. 1988) (pretext framework in discrimination cases)
Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal Inc., 292 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2002) (pretext standard and evidence evaluation in ERISA context)
Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (specific and substantial evidence discussion; approach in circumstantial cases)
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (pretext under burden-shifting framework; governs evaluation of reasons)