Hammond v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the key to whether there is an ERISA plan is whether there is “enough ongoing, particularized administrative discretionary analysis” to make the plan an “ongoing administrative scheme,” not that “the agreement simply required some modicum of discretion”
• not an ERISA plan even though employees would get fixed monthly amount and continuing insurance benefits
• severance payments to be made over the course of up to 24 months “does not rise to the level of an ongoing administrative scheme”
• no ongoing administrative scheme implicated where employer was merely required to make “a straightforward computation of a one-time obligation”
• “Provi sions for severance pay may [or may not] constitute an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA.”
• “Because Delaye’s employment contract is not a 15 ‘plan’ governed by ERISA, his claim that his contract was breached does not present a 16 federal question. The district court lacked jurisdiction to resolve this dispute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).