former employee claims to proceed. See Gray v. Briggs, No. 97 Civ. 6252(DLC), 1998 WL 386177, at *4-6 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 1998) (concluding in the context of a claim under § 1132(a)(1) that a former employee who alleged that distributions received under a defined contribution plan were reduced because of defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty was a “participant” for purposes of ERISA, and noting approvingly the breadth of the Second Circuit’s holding in Mullins); Richards v. FleetBoston Fin. Corp., 235 F.R.D. 165 (D.Conn.2006) (finding that former employees who had liquidated their plan accounts but who sought benefits to which they would have been entitled prior to retirement were “participants”); O’Connell v. Kenney, No. 03 Civ. 0845(DJS), 2003 WL 22991732, at *3-4 (D.Conn. Dec.15, 2003) (<HOLDING>); cf. Dickerson v. Feldman, 426 F.Supp.2d 130,
holding that plaintiff had not stated an equal protection claim where plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant treated him differently from anyone else who both had problems with alcohol and had been arrested holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled holding that plaintiff was entitled to an award but remanding to the hearing officer to gather further evidence because plaintiff miscalculated the relevant time that the student had been denied a fape holding that plaintiffs who had been served and received responses to interrogatories on personal jurisdiction had had such a fair opportunity holding that the beneficiary of a former accountholder had standing where the accountholder had received a lump sum payment but alleged that the amount of the payment had been miscalculated