Gustafson v. Global
Kari A. Gustafson v. TransPerfect Global, Inc., TransPerfect Translations International, Inc. d/b/a Translations.com, and Andrew Minton
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:26-cv-01687
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Gustafson v. TransPerfect Global, Magistrate Judge Elkins granted pro se plaintiff Kari Gustafson leave to file a second amended complaint adding facts to support her ERISA benefit-interference claim.
Employees who allege they were fired to prevent them from using employer-sponsored health benefits, particularly those proceeding without a lawyer and seeking to amend their complaints to add factual detail to ERISA benefit-interference claims.
What happened
In Gustafson v. TransPerfect Global, Inc., Kari Gustafson, representing herself, sued her former employer and a supervisor, alleging she was fired to prevent her from undergoing a costly spinal cord stimulator procedure that was covered by her employer-sponsored health plan. Her amended complaint included a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which prohibits employers from firing workers to cut off their access to benefits. Defendants moved to dismiss that ERISA claim, arguing she had not adequately alleged that they intended to interfere with her benefits.
In response, Gustafson asked the court for permission to file a revised complaint that included newly obtained information from the plan administrator, Benefits and Risk Management Services, Inc. (BRMS). Her proposed new allegations described a detailed timeline showing that the authorization process for her procedure began in May 2025, that her employer could track that process, that a key step in the authorization occurred on July 3, 2025 — the same day her employer made the decision to fire her — and that her benefits were cut off immediately upon termination rather than through the end of the month as company policy allowed, leaving her unable to undergo the procedure.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins granted the motion, finding that the new allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and were therefore not futile. The judge rejected defendants' arguments that Gustafson had only shown employer awareness of her desired procedure and had not linked the termination to a specific decision-maker with knowledge of the authorization process, noting that she had alleged supervisor Andrew Minton knew of the planned procedure and that defendants could track the authorization. The judge also rejected the prejudice argument, finding that re-briefing the ERISA issue would not impose undue burden. Gustafson must file her second amended complaint by August 6, 2026, and may only amend the ERISA count.
The detailed version
- Gustafson v. Global · No. 0:26-cv-01687
- Shannon G. Elkins
- July 24, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Kari A. Gustafson, proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), commenced this action on March 2, 2026, against TransPerfect Global, Inc., TransPerfect Translations International, Inc. (doing business as Translations.com), and Andrew Minton, arising from her employment as an account manager. She alleges she was terminated to avoid covering a high-cost medical procedure — specifically, implantation of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) at Reed Migraine Centers to treat migraines.
On April 17, 2026, Gustafson filed a First Amended Complaint asserting four claims: (1) discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (2) discrimination and retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA); (3) benefit interference under Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1140; and (4) interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Defendants moved to transfer venue based on a forum selection clause and to dismiss all claims. That broader motion remains pending before District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell.
The Motion to Amend
In response specifically to defendants' challenge to the ERISA claim — that she had not plausibly alleged the requisite specific intent to interfere with her benefits — Gustafson filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint as to Count II Only, seeking to incorporate newly obtained information from the ERISA plan administrator, Benefits and Risk Management Services, Inc. (BRMS). Defendants opposed, arguing the proposed amendment would be futile and prejudicial.
Legal Standards
Amendment standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that courts should "freely give leave" to amend "when justice so requires." However, leave may be denied for compelling reasons including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility. Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir. 2008).
Futility standard
An amendment is futile if the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (dismissal for failure to state a claim). Silva v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 762 F.3d 711, 719 (8th Cir. 2014). A complaint survives a 12(b)(6) motion if it alleges sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Conclusory statements alone are insufficient.
ERISA Section 510 standard
Section 510 of ERISA prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against a plan participant "for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan." To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege the defendant possessed "specific intent to interfere" with her ERISA benefits — meaning the employee's entitlement to benefits was a "motivating factor" with a "determinative influence" on the employer's decision. Manning v. Am. Republic Ins. Co., 604 F.3d 1030, 1044 (8th Cir. 2010); Koons v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 367 F.3d 768, 777 (8th Cir. 2004).
The Proposed New Allegations
The proposed Second Amended Complaint added the following specific factual allegations:
- Defendants knew Gustafson wanted the SCS procedure.
- Defendants were financially responsible for claims under the ERISA plan and could track authorization activity through BRMS.
- The precertification process for the SCS began May 13, 2025, and Reed Migraine Centers initiated it with BRMS on May 23,
- 4. An "authorization period" for the SCS procedure became effective June 30,
- 5. On July 3, 2025, BRMS initiated the formal authorization process for the SCS.
- Also on July 3, 2025 — after BRMS initiated authorization — defendants cancelled a standing weekly meeting with Gustafson and rescheduled it for July 7, 2025, and made the decision to terminate her employment. (Note: the opinion contains an apparent typographical error in one paragraph referencing "July 3, 2023" rather than 2025; based on context the court appears to mean 2025.)
- Defendants terminated Gustafson's employment on July 7, 2025, and immediately terminated her benefits through BRMS rather than covering her through the end of July per company policy — which would have allowed her to undergo the procedure while still insured.
- On July 8, 2025, BRMS authorized the SCS procedure for the period of June 30 through July 31,
- 9. Because she was no longer insured, Gustafson was unable to undergo the SCS procedure and another planned procedure on her left foot.
The Court's Ruling
Magistrate Judge Elkins granted the motion, finding the proposed amendment is not futile because the new allegations, taken together, are sufficient to plausibly allege specific intent to interfere with ERISA benefits.
Defendants' futility arguments rejected
Defendants argued Gustafson only showed they knew about her desired procedure and that she failed to link the termination decision to a specific person with knowledge of the authorization process. The court rejected both arguments. It found that Gustafson alleged more than mere awareness — she alleged defendants could track the authorization process through BRMS and were aware authorization was imminent. On the decision-maker issue, the court found it sufficient that she alleged supervisor and "direct decisionmaker" Andrew Minton knew of her planned procedure and that defendants could track the authorization. The court also rejected defendants' factual arguments contradicting her allegations, noting it must accept all allegations as true at this stage.
Defendants' prejudice argument rejected
Defendants argued that granting leave would require them to re-brief their motion to dismiss before Judge Blackwell. The court disagreed, noting that the ERISA arguments are one part of a broader pending motion, and that defendants had already briefed the issue for purposes of the motion to amend, making re-briefing for Judge Blackwell not unduly burdensome.
Order
The Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint as to Count II Only (Dkt. 35) is granted. Gustafson must file her Second Amended Complaint by August 6, 2026. The Second Amended Complaint must include all claims from the First Amended Complaint plus only the approved changes to Count II (the ERISA claim); no other amendments are permitted.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.