Instead, the employee must introduce evidence suggesting that the employer's decision was directed at ERISA rights in particular.' Clark, 990 F.2d at 1224 (citations omitted). ' easures designed to reduce costs in general that also result in an incidental reduction in benefit expenses do not suggest discriminatory intent. The documents submitted by Honeywell indicate that, as of June 1986, Honeywell believed that the CPC was not necessary to the continued operation of the company and yet represented high overhead costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, Honeywell offered several affidavits by Honeywell personnel stating that the closure of the CPC and the associated layoffs were motivated by an attempt to reduce operating costs. Similarly, in Daughtrey's case the employment by ISS of three former CPC employees who were not vested does not support an inference of intent to interfere with Daughtrey's benefits. We held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a prima facia case under section 1140. While the terminated employees were further into the pension plan than many of the retained employees, the plaintiffs failed to show that the employer obtained a reduction in expenditures by discharging those employees entitled to greater pension benefits upon termination. 1993), discharged employees argued that an employer's proposal to streamline operations by reducing the number of salaried positions evidenced an intent to interfere with employee benefits. Further, by virtue of the layoffs the vested employees of the CPC received credit for an additional three years of employment for the purpose of calculating the level of vested pension benefits. Daughtrey presented no evidence that by hiring nonvested employees, who within five years would attain vested pension rights, Honeywell on balance reduced its outlays for employee benefits the evidence equally supports the inference that Honeywell could have decreased its long term expenditures by retaining those employees already vested.

Even within this small sample, one of the former CPC employees was vested when hired by ISS. Daughtrey supported her allegation that Honeywell intended to interfere with her employee benefits with evidence that three of the four former CPC employees who were later employed by ISS had no vested pension rights.

Honeywell s-88 system