Robert Stern v. International Business Machines (IBM), a New York Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• commenting that the “views of the agency entrusted with interpreting and enforcing ERISA carry considerable weight”
• applying 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-1(b) to a benefit program that would “clearly qualify as an ERISA plan but for its specific exemption by a reasonably justified regulation”
• stating that opinion letters are not binding
• “A federal defense to a state law claim generally is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”
• “Because the IBM Program is exempted by regulation from ERISA, the doctrine of complete preemption is inapplicable and no federal question jurisdiction exists, and removal to federal court was improper.”
• “Where . . . an employer pays an employee’s normal compensation for periods of mental or physical disability entirely from its general assets, the program constitutes an exempted payroll practice under 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3–1(b) and not an ERISA plan.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).