descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Vasquez v. Zenith Travel, Inc.

Citation: 14 F. App'x 97Docket: No. 00-9459

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; July 11, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Luz Vasquez appeals a summary judgment that dismissed her claim of illegal discharge in retaliation for inquiring about her 401(k) plan balance, in violation of ERISA § 510 (29 U.S.C. § 1140). Vasquez argues that a reasonable factfinder could conclude her termination was due to these inquiries. The court, however, found that her former employer provided sufficient evidence showing her dismissal was due to its desire to automate her job functions and hire a supervisory accountant. Vasquez failed to present evidence that would allow a reasonable conclusion of retaliatory discharge. Consequently, the District Court's judgment is affirmed.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Lower Court's Judgment

Application: The appellate court affirmed the District Court's judgment due to the plaintiff's failure to present evidence that could lead to a reasonable conclusion of retaliatory discharge.

Reasoning: Vasquez failed to present evidence that would allow a reasonable conclusion of retaliatory discharge. Consequently, the District Court's judgment is affirmed.

Burden of Proof in Summary Judgment

Application: The court determined that the employer met its burden of proof by providing evidence of legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the plaintiff's termination, which the plaintiff failed to adequately refute.

Reasoning: The court, however, found that her former employer provided sufficient evidence showing her dismissal was due to its desire to automate her job functions and hire a supervisory accountant.

Retaliatory Discharge under ERISA § 510

Application: The court examined whether the plaintiff's inquiry about her 401(k) plan balance constituted grounds for a claim of retaliatory discharge under ERISA § 510.

Reasoning: Luz Vasquez appeals a summary judgment that dismissed her claim of illegal discharge in retaliation for inquiring about her 401(k) plan balance, in violation of ERISA § 510 (29 U.S.C. § 1140).