Musmeci v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an employer that makes benefits decisions, and has no meaningful existence apart from the plan, may be held liable
• noting that courts have found that benefits were not a pension plan where the benefits offered were “no-additional-cost” services
• explaining that this court uses “functional approach” to determine whether purported fiduciaries exercise discretionary control over ERISA plans
• confirming that the Fifth Circuit follows the “functional approach” adopted in Kayes
• affirming the program was a pension plan even though benefits were considered “subject to termination at will”
• approving district court’s use of definition of “income” used for purposes of determining taxable income under the IRC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).