John E. Fontenot v. Nl Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a lump sum severance payment, contingent on a single event that may never occur, is not a “plan” for purposes of ERISA
• noting that \severance plan requires no administrative scheme because those employees included in the plan were to receive benefits upon termination regardless of the reason for termination\
• no administrative scheme because “those employees included in the plan were to receive benefits upon termination regardless of the reason for termination.’’
• severance plan “require[d] no administrative scheme because those employees included in the plan were to receive benefits upon termination regardless of the reason for termination.”
• a one time obligation of the employer to provide a severance payment to departing employees did not require creation of an ongoing administrative scheme and therefore did not implicate ERISA
• involving a severance benefit with a one-time, lump-sum payment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).