Excerpt: Kouvchinov sued the employer for violation of ERISA alleging retaliatory discharge, and for tortiously interfering with an advantageous business relationship. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. The 1st Circuit affirmed. Kouvchinov argued that proof of the employer's specific intent to interfere with his ERISA benefits was not required in retaliatory discharge cases as compared to preemptive discrimination cases. The court rejected Kouvchinov's argument because, without the specific intent requirement, every discharged employee who had exercised his right to benefits would have a potential claim against the employer.  MORE >>