ERISA plan. The violations specifically refer to the ESOP, an ERISA plan. Plaintiffs Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act claim is preempted by ERISA. B Section 510 of- ERISA, as noted, prohibits retaliation against an employee “because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to this [Act].”1 29 U.S.C. § 1140. ' In sending the email to Mr. Smith, Plaintiff has- undoubtedly “given information.” The issue is whether Plaintiff did so in an “inquiry or proceeding.” That is, does Plaintiffs unsolicited internal complaint qualify for protection under § 510? Presently, the federal courts of appeal are split on whether § 510 protects such complaints. Compare Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc., 610 F.3d 217, 222-24 (3d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Nicolaou v. Horizon Media, Inc., 402 F.3d
holding that a complaints failure to overcome affirmative defenses does not warrant dismissal holding that  1447c does not apply to counsel holding that miranda does not apply to statements of the defendant which are voluntary and unsolicited and not the product of custodial interrogation holding that  510 does not apply to unsolicited complaints holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively