*1 Before JOLLY and SMITH, Judges. Circuit JOLLY, Judge:
E. GRADY yеars day Exactly four after Zoe- con fired William McClure suit his erstwhile er, alleging that Zoecon receipt him in order to forestall his of medi- benefits, disability cal and violation 1140.1 The Unit- U.S.C. ed States District Court for the Northern summarily of Texas dismissed the District two-year suit as time-barred applicable wrong- statute of limitations discharge discrimina- claims, appeal. prompting the instant applied the district court We believe proper Texas limitations statute and thus affirm. few, largely in this case are
The facts
undisputed,
great
and not of
relevance.
April
around
Sometime
accepted a written offer of
received and
as-
employment from Zoecon. McClure
duties on
8 of that same
sumed his
subchapter, or the Welfare and Pension Plans
reads as follows:
§ 510
any
Act. It shall be unlawful for
any person
Disclosure
It shall be unlawful for
to dis-
fine,
fine,
suspend, expel,
discipline,
person
discharge,
or
charge,
suspend, expel,
or dis-
beneficiary
against any person
criminate
because he
discriminate
exercising any right to
he is
entitled
or is
has
information or has testified
provisions
under the
plan,
of an
proceeding
testify
any inquiry
about to
title,
subchapter,
this
section 1201 of this
relating
chaрter
or the Welfare
to this
Plans Disclosure
or the Welfare and Pension
provisions
Act. The
Pension Plans Disclosure
Act,
or for the
with the
applicable
of this title shall be
of section 1132
any right
partici-
to which such
attainment
enforcemеnt of this section.
pant
entitled under the
this
become
*2
thereafter,
year; shortly
he
gants part
was transfer-
company only
respect
with
group”
Zoecon’s “residue
red from
proper
characterization of a
510
lab,”
“quality
aрparently on ac-
control
claim. Zoecon—as well as the court be-
personality
count
clashes that he had
low—thinks a
510 suit most similar to a
group supervisor.
had with the residue
wrongful discharge or employment discrim-
and,
ination clаim
consequently, subject to
true,
allegations
If McClure’s
the two-year prescription period
ap-
Texas
personality
proved costly.
clashes
He con-
plies to such claims. See Tex.Civ.Prac. &
February
tends that
of 1985 he was
(Vеrnon 1986).
Rem.Code
16.003
exposed
pesticides
working
while
in the
McClures,
hand,
on the other
urge a differ-
laboratory; he further contends that he
ent characterization —that of a contract
through
physician
later learned
that this
claim—and accordingly ask that their
510
exposure
him
caused
harm. Further-
action be
measured
15, 1985,
May
on
Zoecon fired
governs
limitations statute that
argues
a termination he
“was
sounding in contract. See Tex.Civ.Prac. &
pretextual
job
and not
pеrform-
based on
(Vernon
Rem.Code
1986).
ance
preventing
but was for
... or
with the attainment of
suggested above,
As
we have
to de
health
welfare
[Zoecon’s]
cide
characterization of a
510
and
plans.”
life insurance
action fоr
purposes.
limitations
Other
courts have
question,
considered this
15, 1989,
how
May
On
McClure filed
origi-
ever,
nearly
and
all have construed
510
Zoecon,
complaint against
nal
which was
discharge or employ
9, 1989,
amended on June
to include his
ment disсrimination claims. See Gavalik v.
plaintiff.
wife
party
By
motion filed
Co.,
834,
Continental Can
812
22,
1990,
843-46
February
Zoecon asked for sum-
(3rd Cir.),
den.,
979,
484 U.S.
108
mary judgment
grounds
495,
to
(1989)
(characterizing
under
Moreover, there is noth-
properly applied.4
101(a)(2)of the Labor-Management Re
§
ing to indicate that
the characterization
porting and Disclosurе Act in reliance on
point
contention in
question was ever a
purpose
101(a)(2)).
behind
if it
Even
§
Heideman;
parties
the
well have
were
to
solely
ascribe to
510 a
§
mistakenly
a
agreed
§
purpose, by
“economic”
it
no means fоllows
—that
—albeit
a
claim. Al-
suit most resembles
contract
contractual;
all,
that
510 claims are
after
though the same cannot be said of
Clark
recognizes
the
law
several economic
Clark, Inc.,
What is
the court’s decision to classi-
issue,
presents
This case
a narrow
fy
Congress’s pur-
basis of
сircuit,
impression within
one of first
our
pose
passing
entirety
the
of ERISA—as
upon
split:
an issue
which the circuits are
opposed
plaintiff’s
employment
does a
particularly
overly broad and thus
—seems
510 of ERISA more
benefits
section
improperly
focused.
Wilson
closely
discrimi-
resemble
nation claim or a
of contract claim?
breach
(1985) (characterizing
L.Ed.2d 254
personal
consistently concluded that
injury
actions as
claims because
Courts have
purpose underlying
employee’s right
to the benefits secured
Good-
502(a)(1)(B)
Heideman,
recover
due to
ERISA claim is time-barred.”
suit "to
benefits
plan,
rights
opinion
under the
to enforce his
un-
[him]
district court
is
F.2d at 1267. The
clarify
rights
PFL,
der the terms of
equally
analysis. Heideman v.
bereft of
plan.”
to future benefits under the terms of the
Inc.,
(W.D.Mo.1989).
1132(a)(1)(B).
perhaps
29 U.S.C.
decided,
While
well-
bearing
cases have
no
our
passing,
5. In
the court did consider an
characterization of the
claim.
McClures’ 510
characterization, rejecting
ment discrimination
ground
“appellants’
not
it on the
claims do
period covering
"The limitations
contracts is
”
allege any discriminatory
years,
(Repl.
action....
Id. at
six
Tenn.Code Ann.
thus,
28-3-109
ruled,
1980), and
as the District Court
3;
right. The
n.
is a contractual
ma- 778-79
ERISA
seе also Held v. Manufactur
this,
dispute
yet it still con-
Leasing Corp.,
not
ers Hanover
jority does
depriv-
action in
cludes that an
Dameron v. Sinai
Baltimore,
Hosp.
right
of that
is more
ing
claims of
Given that the
analogous to the tort
to ben
plan
efits undеr an
employment discrimination
has been de
discharge or
fined as a
right,
contract action.
find it ano
than to a breach of
suggest,
majority does,
malous
as the
two-year statute of
Applying Texas’s
that the
deprive
not to
majority
tоrt
limitations for
employee of
those contractual
is a
plaintiff’s
claim for re-
concludes
If
to benefits is contractual
filed
lief in the ease before us was
untime-
*4
corresponding
then the
duty
provide
ly,
summary judgment
and it affirms
those benеfits must also be contractual.
I
against
order issued
him. Because would
majority’s
justification
sole
for clas-
four-year
held that Texas’s
statute of
sifying a section 510 action as a “tort” is
applica-
limitations for contract actions wаs
the statute uses the words “dis-
plaintiff
pursue
ble and allowed the
his
charge” and
Majority
“discriminate.” See
relief,
respectfully
I
dissent.
Opinion
words,
at
778. These
nothing
more than
herrings.
red
An
selectively
decision to
breach a
plaintiff,
McClure, alleges
employee
contract with
X rather than em-
Zoecon, Inc.,
employer,
that his
ployee mayY
be described as discrimina-
prevent him
from
employee X
does not
advantage
welfare,
of the health
change the fact that
the essence of the
life insurance benefits to which he was
cause of action remains in contract. For
employee
entitled as an
of Zoecon.
purposes
selecting
appropriate
an aсtion
limitations,
statute of
our focus must re-
invoking
section 510 of
main on the
and duties involved and
illegal
employer
makes it
for an
to inter
not on the
by
parties.
actions taken
protected rights
fere with
under a
plan.
See 29 U.S.C.
provide
1140. Sincе section 510 does not
I would have followed the lead of the
limitations,
for a statute of
courts must
Eleventh and
classifying
Circuits in
the limitations
for the state
a section 510 action as a contract action for
analogous
law most
to sеction 510. See
purposes
applying
limi
statute of
Garcia,
261, 266-67, 105
Wilson v.
tations. See Heideman v.
S.Ct.
(8th Cir.1990),
denied,
presented
The issue
for our consideration —
—,
U.S.
112 L.Ed.2d
asks whether a violation of section 510 is
Clark, Inc.,
Clark v. Coats &
equivalent
to a causе of action in
(11th Cir.1989). Since,
contract or a cause of action
provides
for a
statute of
limitations for contract
I would
have concluded
request
that McClure’s
selecting
An
method for
relief was
filed. See Tex.Civ.Prac.
state law most
to McClure’s sec-
(Vernon 1986)
& Rem. Code Ann.
tion 510 action is to examine the elements
(statute
actions).
of limitations for contract
of the cause of action. See
circumstances,
Under such
I would have
U.S. at