vested at the time of his departure from Gilman, and Gilman freely concedes that those vested rights have not been extinguished. Indeed, plaintiff is currently receiving the level of benefits to which he was entitled as of the date of his termination. Plaintiff’s termination affected his pension rights only in the most incidental respect; he has been denied the opportunity to accrue the increased pension benefits which are associated with continued employment. As the legislative history and the above cases make clear, this is not an interest protected by the statute. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is, therefore, GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter an appropriate judgment. SO ORDERED. 1 . See Nemeth v. Clark Equipment Co., 677 F.Supp. 899, 907 (W.D.Mich.1987)
holding lost pension benefits recoverable as front pay holding that  510 provides a remedy for employees whose pension rights have vested and whose  injury is the lost opportunity to accrue additional benefits holding that the exclusionary rule is available only to the person whose constitutional rights were violated in the gathering of challenged evidence the remedy for violation of the privacy act is vested by statute in the individual whose records were improperly released not in a third party criminal defendant against whom the records are used holding that in the absence of an adequate state remedy one whose constitutional rights are violated has a direct claim against the state under the state constitution holding that an employees protected interest in a pension vested before he or she became eligible to collect the pension