Joffe v. King & Spalding LLP

Background

David A. Joffe was a litigation associate at King & Spalding LLP from January 2012 until his termination in December 2016. He brought two claims against the firm. The first was a New York common-law contract claim based on an alleged retaliatory termination. The second was a claim under Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which prohibits discharging an employee to interfere with the employee’s rights under an employee-benefit plan.

The ERISA claim concerned an approximately $20,000 profit-sharing contribution to Joffe’s 401(k) account. The contribution was scheduled to vest on January 1, 2017, if Joffe remained employed through that date. On December 7, 2016, Joffe was told he was being terminated, and the firm stated that his employment would officially end on December 14, 2016. The parties did not dispute that the firm later took back the contribution on December 29, 2016.

A jury had returned a verdict for King & Spalding on Joffe’s contract claim after an eight-day trial. The parties had agreed that the court, rather than a jury, would decide the ERISA claim using the trial record.

Legal standard

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used in employment-discrimination cases. First, Joffe had to show that he was qualified, protected by ERISA, and terminated under circumstances suggesting intentional interference with his ERISA rights. If he made that initial showing, King & Spalding had to provide a legitimate reason for the termination. Joffe then had to prove that the stated reason was a pretext—that is, a cover for unlawful interference.

The parties disagreed about whether Joffe had to show that ERISA interference was a motivating factor or the stricter “but for” cause of his termination. The court did not resolve that legal question because it concluded that Joffe failed even under the motivating-factor standard.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Joffe established an initial case of unlawful interference. His termination took effect two weeks before the scheduled vesting date, and the court held that this close timing was enough to support an inference of intentional interference.

The court then found that King & Spalding provided legitimate reasons for terminating Joffe. The firm cited his failure to participate in his own career development, including repeatedly failing to submit business practice plans, and the firm’s view that he was unlikely to receive new work. The court found the testimony supporting those reasons credible.

Joffe argued that the firm selected December 14 as the effective termination date and discussed a separation agreement in a way that used the retirement contribution as leverage. The court concluded that Joffe offered no evidence that anyone at King & Spalding considered the contribution during the termination or separation negotiations. Without such evidence, he failed to show that the firm’s stated reasons were pretextual or that interference with his ERISA rights was a motivating factor.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni found in favor of King & Spalding on Joffe’s ERISA claim and dismissed that claim. The opinion does not state an additional disposition for the contract claim beyond noting the jury’s earlier verdict for King & Spalding.