Jacqueline Barnhardt v. Open Harvest Cooperative
742 F.3d 365
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Jacqueline Barnhardt worked for Open Harvest, enrolled in employee-paid short-term disability insurance under a Dearborn National policy; Open Harvest paid no portion of premiums.
- Barnhardt disclosed an arteriovenous malformation (AVM) and intent to take medical leave in early 2011; thereafter her supervisor, Kelsi Swanson, raised performance concerns and placed her on a performance-improvement plan and probation.
- On July 28 Barnhardt criticized management publicly; she was terminated at work on August 2, 2011. Open Harvest deducted an August premium from her final pay but did not forward it to Dearborn; the deduction was refunded in December.
- Dearborn denied Barnhardt’s short-term disability claim, stating coverage terminated July 31, 2011, and disability began August 2, 2011.
- Barnhardt sued, alleging ERISA § 510 interference (among other claims). The district court granted summary judgment to Open Harvest; Barnhardt appealed only the ERISA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Open Harvest acted with specific intent to interfere with ERISA benefits under § 510 | Barnhardt: termination and failure to forward August premium were timed to prevent her short-term disability claim after she disclosed her AVM/leave intention | Open Harvest: termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory performance reasons; nonpayment of premium was a reasonable interpretation of policy that coverage ended when active work ceased | Court: No direct evidence of specific intent; under McDonnell Douglas, Open Harvest offered legitimate reasons and Barnhardt failed to show pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether failing to forward August premium constituted actionable § 510 interference | Barnhardt: nonpayment caused Dearborn to deny benefits and thus was interference | Open Harvest: acted in good faith, reasonably interpreting policy that coverage ended when employment/active work ceased | Court: Even assuming prima facie case, Open Harvest’s justification was legitimate and Barnhardt produced no evidence of pretext; not actionable |
| Whether discharge itself was motivated by intent to interfere with ERISA benefits | Barnhardt: temporal proximity of disclosure and termination supports inference of discriminatory intent | Open Harvest: performance deficiencies (tardiness, long lunches, delegation, criticism, low membership results) motivated discharge | Court: Performance reasons are legitimate; timing alone insufficient to show pretext; no genuine dispute of material fact on intent |
| Whether temporal proximity alone can establish pretext in § 510 claim | Barnhardt: timing between disclosure and adverse actions proves motive | Open Harvest: timing without other evidence is insufficient, especially when employer had no economic incentive (did not pay premiums) | Court: Timing alone insufficient; plaintiff needed additional evidence (e.g., link to employer costs) and provided none; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. American Republic Ins. Co., 604 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2010) (specific intent to interfere required for § 510 claim)
- Koons v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 367 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must show entitlement to benefits had determinative influence on employer decision)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (employer may offer good-faith but incorrect interpretation as legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Green v. Franklin National Bank of Minneapolis, 459 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2006) (temporal proximity alone insufficient to show pretext)
- Majewski v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 274 F.3d 1106 (6th Cir. 2001) (not every termination by an employer sponsoring an ERISA plan gives rise to § 510 liability)