Peter TISCHMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ITT/SHERATON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that employer was required to determine whether, inter alia, the employee had “(i) engage[d] in any activity which is inimical to the best interests of the Company; (ii) disparagefd] the Company; (ni
• finding an ERISA-governed plan, in part, due to the employee’s ongoing responsibility, even after termination, to “be available” to render services to the company under “reasonable circumstances”
• noting argument raised for the first time in reply brief is waived
• finding a plan to be governed by ERISA despite the fact that a provision in the plan that stated that the plan is subject to termination or amendment by the employer weighs against a finding that a reasonable employee would perceive the plan as an ongoing commitment
• “[B]oth the Supreme Court and this court have emphasized that ERISA applies only where ... an undertaking or obligation requires the creation of an ongoing administrative program” and explaining the policy behind this requirement (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).