U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS › Subtitle Subtitle B— Regulatory Provisions › Part part 5— administration and enforcement

29 U.S.C. § 1140

Interference with protected rights

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan, this subchapter, section 1201 of this title, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act [29 U.S.C. 301 et seq.], or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan, this subchapter, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act. It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, or discriminate against any person because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to this chapter or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act. In the case of a multiemployer plan, it shall be unlawful for the plan sponsor or any other person to discriminate against any contributing employer for exercising rights under this chapter or for giving information or testifying in any inquiry or proceeding relating to this chapter before Congress. The provisions of section 1132 of this title shall be applicable in the enforcement of this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,436 cases (157 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Edwards v. AH Cornell & Son, Inc., 610 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edwards v. AH Cornell & Son, Inc., 610 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 14× “On appeal, we are presented with a single issue of first impression for this Court: whether the anti-retaliation provision of Section 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 , protects an employee's unsolicited internal complaints to management.”
Connie M. Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Amp Inc., Formerly Known as Carroll Touch Tech. Corp., 977 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir. 1992). · cites it 12× “In reviewing this motion for summary judgment the district court focused on the following allegations contained in Tolle’s complaint: (1) CTI’s employment termination of Tolle on October 19, 1984, interfered with and deprived her of certain employee benefits in violation of…”
Scott Teutscher v. Riverside Sheriffs Assn, 835 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “WOODSON 7 section 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 ; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under California common law; and retaliatory discharge in violation of California Labor Code §§ 98.”
Violet Hogan v. Jo Ellen Jacobson, 823 F.3d 872 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “1) (Page ID # 698), and added an ERISA claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 for interference with Hogan’s right to obtain disability benefits under the insurance policy, id.”
Terry Smith v. Ameritech Ameritech Publ'g, Inc. Sickness & Accident Disability Benefit Plan Long Term Disability Plan, 129 F.3d 857 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 6× “§§ 1001-1461 ; interfered with his right to future disability benefits in violation of ERISA § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 ; denied him reasonable accommodations for his disability in violation of both the Americans with Disabilities Act- (“ADA”), 42 U.”
William J. Kross v. W. Elec. Co., Inc., 701 F.2d 1238 (7th Cir. 1983). · cites it 6× “The plaintiff William Kross brought this class action against his former employer, Western Electric, alleging that he and the class 1 he seeks to represent were “discharged” 2 in violation of § 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [“ERISA”], 29 U.S.C. § 1140 . The…”
R. Alexander Acosta v. Scott Brain, 910 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “The action alleged violations of two sections of ERISA – unlawful retaliation in violation of ERISA section 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 , and breach of fiduciary duty in violation of ERISA section 404, 29 U.”
John H. Held v. Mfrs. Hanover Leasing Corp., 912 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir. 1990). · cites it 6× “Appellant’s complaint alleges that MHLC discharged him after almost ten years of employment, in part to prevent him from attaining vested rights under MHLC’s retirement plan in violation of § 510 of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1140 . The…”
Robert Douglas Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1991). · cites it 5× “Ill A Conkwright also seeks damages under § 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 , on *236 the ground that Westinghouse intentionally sought to deprive him of rights in its pension plan.”
A Soc'y Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “Although Stiltner involves ERISA's anti-retaliation provision ( 29 U.S.C. § 1140 ), that provision and the ADA's retaliation *351 provision ( 42 U.”
Teamsters Local Union No. 705 v. Burlington N. Santa Fe, LLC, 741 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2014). · cites it 5× “The plaintiffs have narrowed their case on appeal, focusing on just two claims: (1) unlawful interference with the attainment of retirement benefits in violation of § 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 ; and (2) a related conspiracy claim.”
Joseph E. Dister v. The Cont'l Grp., Inc., 859 F.2d 1108 (2d Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “895 (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (1982)). This dashed plaintiff’s apparent hope that had he but lingered a little longer as an employee and obtained the enhanced pension benefits, then the best was yet to come; his future would be secure.”
Show all 1,436 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.