 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Joint Petition of Boardwalk Regency Corporation v. New Jersey Casino Control Commission6/21/2002
2d 474, 484 (1990) (citations omitted); Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97, 103 S. Ct. 2890, 2900, 77 L. Ed. 2d 490, 501 (1983). ERISA defines the term "employee welfare benefit plan" as:
" program which established . . . by an employer . . . , to the extent that such plan . . . was established . . . for the purpose of providing . . . through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, (A) . . . benefits in the event of . . . disability . . . . [29 U.S.C.A. 1002(1).]
DiBartolomeo relies on this provision to support his position that the proposed severance payment constitutes an ERISA plan. His argument is misplaced.
As previously noted, the preemptive purpose of ERISA is intended to provide employers with a uniform set of procedures for administering employee benefit plans. Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 11, 107 S. Ct. 2211, 2217, 96 L. Ed. 2d 1, 11 (1987).
This concern only arises, however, with respect to benefits whose provision by nature requires an ongoing administrative program to meet the employer's obligation. It is for this reason that Congress pre- empted state laws relating to plans, rather than simply to benefits. Only a plan embodies a set of administrative practices vulnerable to the burden that would be imposed by a patchwork scheme of regulation. [Id., 482 U.S. at 11-12, 107 S. Ct. at 2217, 96 L. Ed. 2d at 11.]
The Fort Halifax Court based its decision on the fact that the employer assumed no responsibility to pay benefits on a regular basis and thus faced no periodic demand on its assets that created a need for financial coordination and control: "To do little more than write a check hardly constitutes the operation of a benefit plan. Once this single event is over, the employer has no further responsibility." Id., 482 U.S. at 12, 107 S. Ct. at 2218, 96 L. Ed. 2d at 12. Thus, the "touchstone for application of ERISA is the existence of an undertaking or obligation by an employer requiring the creation of an ongoing administrative program." Hijeck v. United Techs. Corp., 24 F. Supp. 2d 243, 247 (D. Conn. 1998) (citing Ibid.); see also Belanger v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 71 F.3d 451 (1st Cir. 1995); Angst v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 969 F.2d 1530 (3d Cir. 1992).
In the present case, the single disbursement of approximately $750,000 to DiBartolomeo would require no ongoing administrative scheme and therefore does not implicate ERISA under the Fort Halifax test. Nor does the two-year continuation of existing health benefits invoke the application of ERISA because the continuation of the benefits will presumably be administered under a pre-existing administrative scheme which will remain unaffected by the severance agreement.
VII.
Two issues remain. DiBartolomeo argues (1) that the "reasonableness of its terms" standard enumerated in Section 104b is unconstitutionally void for vagueness, and (2) the Commission erroneously denied DiBartolomeo's motion to supplement the record and for reconsideration. We have carefully reviewed the record and the applicable law. We find that the arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a full written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) & (E).
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 New Jersey Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|