With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". specific intent of violating ERISA. Humphreys, 966 F.2d at 1043. The District Court suggested that since plaintiff did in fact obtain extensive medical benefits under Weastec’s health benefits plan and was never denied reimbursement, a reasonable jury could not find that Weastec engaged in prohibited conduct with the specific intent of violating ERISA, However, the statute indicates only that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in conduct for the purpose of interfering with his rights, not that the employer’s conduct actually had the effect of interfering with his rights. Other courts have recognized that a plaintiffs receipt of ERISA-protected benefits does not preclude an ERISA claim under § 510. See, e.g., Kowalski v. L & F Prods., 82 F.3d 1283, 1287 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 889 F.2d

A: holding that an employee who claims to have been terminated by her employer for having exercised her right to disability benefits raised a cognizable claim under  510 of erisa notwithstanding the fact that she received the benefits from her employer prior to termination
B: holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea
C: holding that where employer paid benefits under group disability policy to employee under mistaken belief that his condition resulted from illness rather than injury arising out of and in course of employment employees acceptance of such benefits did not bar him from benefits to which he was entitled under workers compensation law and employer was properly allowed credit for payments made under disability policy
D: holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits
A.