Diane James v. Fleet/norstar Financial Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “The employee’s option to receive the money in bi-weekly installments instead of in a lump sum did not change the basic situation.”
• “The employee’s option to receive the money in bi-weekly installments instead of in a lump sum did not change the basic situation.”
• simple arithmetical calculations and clerical determination do not require ongoing, particularized, administrative, discretionary analysis
• “Fleet’s contemplated payments upon separation of its employees did not constitute an employee welfare benefit ‘plan.’”
• the fact that employees had different termination dates, different eligibility, and that payments had to be calculated individually, did not require the establishment of an ongoing administrative scheme
• the fact that employees had different termination dates, different eligibility, and that payments had to be calculated individually, did not require the establishment of an ongoing administrative scheme

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).