MEMORANDUM ***

Rosemarie Cole appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of The Permanente Medical Group on Cole’s claim that Permanente terminated her employment in violation of § 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

ERISA § 510 provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to discharge ... a participant [in an employee benefit plan] ... for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1140. The district court concluded that Cole established a prima facie ease of discrimination under § 510 because she was discharged 18 months before she would have been entitled to additional benefits under her pension plan. Even if she established a prima facie case, Cole’s claim fails because Per-manente articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Cole. See Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454, 456-57 (9th Cir. 1995) (applying burden shifting analysis applicable to Title VII and ADEA claims to claim brought under § 510 of ERISA). Cole was terminated because she knowingly violated Per-manente’s confidentiality policy by accessing her then-husband’s medical records 12 times and another person’s records more than once. Cole did not present any evidence that showed Permanente’s articulated motive for terminating her was pretext for a discriminatory motive. See id. Cole did not present evidence that the person who made the decision to terminate her employment was aware that the termination would reduce Cole’s pension benefits or disqualify Cole from any benefits.

AFFIRMED.