attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1140. While Manning’s complaint appears to present Count Two as an ERISA interference claim, in resisting ARIC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Manning argues Count Two is instead an ERISA retaliation claim. Manning can establish ERISA-based retaliation through direct evidence, or in the absence of direct evidence of an employer’s deliberate interference with STD benefits, the Court analyzes § 510 interference claims using the McDonnell Douglas three-part burden-shifting analysis common to Title VII and ADEA cases. See Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); Libel v. Adventure Lands of Am., Inc., 482 F.3d 1028, 1035 n. 7 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 1. Direct Evidence Manning may produce direct
holding that a patternorpractice claim is not available to individual plaintiffs although patternorpractice evidence may be relevant to proving an otherwiseviable individual claim for disparate treatment under the mcdonnell douglas framework recognizing that the mcdonnell douglas framework is less useful in the context of an alleged discriminatory disciplinary decision than in the context of an alleged discriminatory hiring decision holding because the plaintiffs erisa claim is based on alleged circumstantial evidence  the eighth circuit analyzed the claim under the mcdonnell douglas framework holding because libels erisa claim is based on alleged circumstantial evidence  we analyze it under the mcdonnell douglas framework holding that without a link to the challenged decision stray remarks did not constitute indirect evidence of discrimination sufficient to satisfy the final prong of the mcdonnell douglas framework