## Facts

- Maria De Lourdes Parra Marin worked at Dave & Buster’s Times Square location from 2006 to 2013, typically 30–45 hours per week, and received health coverage through the employer’s ERISA-governed welfare benefit plan.
- In June 2013, management allegedly stated that Affordable Care Act compliance would be costly and that the location planned to reduce the number of full-time employees substantially to avoid those costs.
- Shortly after those statements, Marin’s hours were allegedly reduced beginning in June 2013 to roughly 10–25 hours per week, averaging about 17.43 hours.
- On March 10, 2014, the employer notified Marin that she was reclassified as part-time and that her full-time health coverage would terminate March 31, 2014.
- Marin alleged the reduced hours caused loss of full-time status, a pay reduction, and loss of eligibility for medical and vision benefits.
- Marin sued alleging the employer implemented an hours-reduction strategy to reduce anticipated health-benefit costs and to deprive employees of present and future plan benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the employer reduced Marin’s hours and reclassified her with specific intent to interfere with her attainment of rights under an ERISA-governed health plan, sufficient to state a claim under ERISA § 510 and survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

## Decision

- The court denied the employer’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- The court held the allegations plausibly supported an inference that the employer acted with the specific intent to interfere with Marin’s benefit rights, as required by ERISA § 510.
- The court concluded Marin had standing to pursue the claim and that the requested equitable relief was available through ERISA’s enforcement provisions at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- ERISA § 510 prohibits adverse employment actions taken for the purpose of interfering with a participant’s attainment of rights under an ERISA plan.
- A § 510 plaintiff must allege specific intent to interfere with ERISA-protected rights; incidental effects on benefits from neutral business decisions are insufficient.
- Specific intent may be pleaded and inferred from circumstantial facts, including decisionmaker statements, timing, and a pattern linking employment actions to benefit costs.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, allegations connecting hours reductions and reclassification to avoiding benefit obligations can plausibly state a § 510 interference claim.
- Remedies for § 510 violations are generally pursued through ERISA’s equitable enforcement mechanism, including relief such as reinstatement of benefits where appropriate.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the ERISA § 510 claim to proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged that the employer cut hours and reclassified the plaintiff to part-time, not merely for general restructuring, but at least in part to avoid health-benefit costs and interfere with attainment of plan benefits.


Marin v. Dave & Buster's, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 3d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)