Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)

Citation
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Parent Document
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Effective Date
2011-08-24

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text

762 chars
Our holding in Stiltner v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 74 F.3d 1473, 1484 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc), that revocation of gratuitous benefits fails to qualify as an adverse action for purposes of ERISA’s retaliation provision, does not counsel a different result. In Stiltner, we explained that Congress modeled ERISA’s retaliation provision on parallel language in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and so we looked to the NLRA to determine the meaning of that language. Id. at 1482-84. It was this NLRA-focused inquiry that led us to conclude that revoking gratuitous benefits does not constitute adverse action for purposes of ERISA. Id. But that holding, which we based on the labor-specific statutory context that confronted us, provides little guidance here.