DeLapaz v. Magnifique Parfumes and Cosmetics Inc, 4:09-cv-00026

Plaintiffs sue Magnifique Parfumes and Cosmetics, Inc. (d/b/a Perfumania) and Victoria Burton in a three-count complaint.
Count 1 alleges unlawful termination under ERISA § 1140 to prevent ERISA benefits; Count 2 alleges defamation per se against Burton; Count 3 asserts a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
DeLapaz was hired in Aug 2008 as Lafayette store manager and reported to Burton.
Events around Dec 24–31, 2008 involved DeLapaz taking an unapproved break, claiming a foot injury, and disputes over sick leave; he did not inform Magnifique of a planned leave, nor did he request medical leave.
Magnifique treated the termination as a resignation based on DeLapaz’s actions and communications; DeLapaz later claimed he never intended to resign and sued in March 2009.
The court granted summary judgment on Count 1 (ERISA) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 2–3, dismissing them without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ERISA claim maintainable for equitable relief only	DeLapaz seeks equitable relief under §1132(a)(3) including back pay and lost benefits.	Remedies sought are legal damages not recoverable under §1132(a)(3).	Court held relief sought was partly non-recoverable but permitted possible equitable relief; thus not dismissing Count 1 on justiciability.
Whether Magnifique’s stated reason (quit) was pretext for unlawful termination	Evidence shows pretext via suspicious timing and internal communications.	Reason—believing DeLapaz quit—was honestly held; no pretext shown.	Plaintiff failed to show pretext by a preponderance of the evidence; summary judgment for Magnifique on Count 1 stands.
Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law Counts 2–3	State-law claims remain related and should proceed in federal court.	With federal claim resolved, discretionary withdrawal is appropriate to avoid federal engagement of state-law issues.	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction; Counts 2–3 dismissed without prejudice for state-law resolution in state court.

Sereboff v. Mid. Atl. Med. Servs., 547 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2006) (limits on types of relief under ERISA §1132(a)(3))
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (U.S. 2002) (equitable vs. legal relief under ERISA)
Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1993) (damages vs. equitable relief distinction)
Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2006) (back pay generally not recoverable under §1132(a)(3))
Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 532 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2001) (front pay as equitable relief; reinstatement issues)
Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1978) (equitable relief characterization for reinstatement)
Newpage Wisconsin System, Inc. v. United Steel, 651 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2011) (post-Newpage approach to §1132(a)(3) remedies)
Harper v. C.R. England, Inc., 687 F.3d 297 (7th Cir. 2012) (pretext standard in Title VII/ERISA contexts)
Franzen v. Ellis Corp., 543 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2008) (pretext evidence standards)
Smith v. Med. Benefit Adm’rs Grp., Inc., 639 F.3d 277 (7th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff cannot be monetarily compensated under §1132(a)(3))
Gates v. Caterpillar, Inc., 513 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2008) (burden-shifting framework for pretext)