WPCT A4l 0 7!#w&"q9UR/V9NN̜<~ K=MIzl#8& IӍ߯XT|ܫ;r\iaiZL|^^2iͰ-Uc1whqr#2N>'z#/6n-~be|fK|#SܼL[/PT O |/h{TQ%ZAJMѰ!s="G9&Pt" ,+g5I++;&^8ʘG0ePovn4G@xX@|#M}HhbJƎo.= ѡ$&}H3n`'`q "A@R@6Xޡkq%:egT2&Fꚅ̈G,`ѫ EV=ѣǶX#! % 0 D 0(G U :o 0 UN2 U 'F N UL> N^ w@4ThwEyf{a} mUB Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb7b7?x(BjU>P U: r :$%@').11U>4U:4UF5I5U>6U:"7UF\7UF77U><U:<UF*=(p=U>??U>CU:CUFDHDU>FUF>FFU>EHUFHAHU> KU:HKUFKKU>PU:QUF:QQU>TUFRTHP LaserJet 4 LOCAL,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(':2u$ !        0  vr Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular<( 9Z+&Courier Regular㛾* ASBDCED?EF GHrIJy*rtyBar<ʅ3|xJTABLE AU <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi u$      *    _OftheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation. u$      *    _OftheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation. d u$      *    _OftheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation.- -  u$      1    _ `  XV6XXXThecourtalsofoundallbutoneofthealleged  misrepresentationsmadebyCGCanditschiefhumanresourcesofficer,appelleeWilliams,tobeimmaterial,andhencenotabreachofthefiduciarydutyowedbyERISAplanadministratorstotheirbeneficiaries.See29U.S.C.1109,1132.Givenour   disposition,Williams'personalliabilityisnolongeratissue.Therefore,werefertoappelleessimplyasCGC.#XV6XX XV6}#XXXXV6  u$      2    _ `  XV6XXXHorninginitiallygavenoticetoretireeffective  February1,butsteppeddownamonthearlyafterbeingassuredthattherewasnoincentiveplanforthcoming.#XV6XX XV6}#XXXXV6  u$      3    _ `  XV6XXXOneofthemisstatementsmadetoO'Connorwasfoundtobe  actionableasanaffirmativemisrepresentation;afterabenchtrialonthatbreachoffiduciarydutyclaim,judgmentwasenteredinfavorofCGC.Thatrulingwasnotappealed.#XV6XX XV6}#XXXXV6  u$      4    _ XV6XXX ` Thecourtalsodismissedappellants'federalcommonlaw  claimsofequitableestoppel,fraud,andnegligentmisrepresentationasduplicativeoftheERISAclaim.O'Connor,85 @ F.Supp.2dat6162.Althoughwehaverecognizedourequitablepowerstofashionacommonlawremedythrough"interstitiallawmaking"whereERISAdoesnotprovideone,e.g.Vartanianv.  Monsanto,14F.3d697,703(1stCir.1994),thisisnotthe `  appropriatecaseinwhichtodoso.SeeMauserv.RaytheonCo., ( x 239F.3d51,57(1stCir.2001)("[W]emustexercisecautionincreatingnewcommonlawrulesforpensionplans;weshouldonlyactwhenthereis,infact,agapinthestructureofERISAorintheexistingfederalcommonlawrelatingtoERISA.").BecauseweconcludethattherewasnoERISAplan,wewouldbehardpressedtoextendtheprotectionsofthestatute.#XV6XX XV6q#XXXXV6  u$      5    _ `  XV6XXXAlthoughthisstandardwasthesourceofsomeconfusion  inthedistrictcourt,seeO'Connor,85F.Supp.2dat55n.6,the x mixupappearstohavestemmedfromafailurefullytoappreciatethatBelangerwasaposttrialappeal,whereasRodowiczandBaig X wereappealsfromsummaryjudgmentorders.  u$      4    _ ` uXJXXXOneofthemisstatementsmadetoO'Connorwasfoundtobe  actionableasanaffirmativemisrepresentation;afterabenchtrialonthatbreachoffiduciarydutyclaim,judgmentwasenteredinfavorofCGC.Thatrulingwasnotappealed.#vXJXX XJ}#XzXXXJ<( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTT h u$      6    _ `  XV6XXXAstheSupremeCourthasrecognized,thestatutory  definitionofan"employeepensionbenefitplan"istautological,defininganERISAplanas"anyplan,fund,orprogram...thatbyitsexpresstermsorasaresultofsurroundingcircumstances...providesretirementincometoemployees."29U.S.C.1002(2)(A);seeFortHalifaxPackingCo.v.Coyne,482U.S.1,89  (1987);seealsoDemarsv.CignaCorp.,173F.3d443,445(1stCir. `   1999);Belanger,71F.3dat454#XV6XX XV6}# XV6XXXV6.#XV6XX XV6#XXXXV6  u$      7    _ `  XV6XXXIncidentally,bothO'ConnorandHorninghadsurpassed  thisthreedecademilestoneandthereforewouldhavebeenentitledtothemaximumseverancebonusallowableunderthePRP.#XV6XX XV6}#XXXXV6  u$      8    _ `  XV6XXXAvirtuallyidentical"5&5"provisionwasrejectedbyCGC  andscaledbacktoamaximumcreditof78months'service.See x O'Connor,85F.Supp.2dat52.#XV6XX XV6}#XXXXV6 6 u$      9    _ `  XV6XXXTheConsolidatedOmnibusBudgetReconciliationActof  1985(COBRA),29U.S.C.1162,anamendmenttoERISA,requiresemployerstocontinueinsurancecoverageforuptoeighteenmonthsafterseparationforthoseemployeeswhocontinuetopaytheirownpremium.UnderthePRP,CGCpaidthosepremiumsforatleastayear.#XV6XX XV6}#XXXXV6  u$      10    _ `  XV6XXXIronically,employersengagedinERISAlitigation  typicallyarguethattheirplansarecoveredbythefederalstatuteinanefforttopreemptstatelawclaims.Suchapositionseemsincongruousbecause,byimposingERISA'sfiduciaryobligation#XV6XX XV6~# XV6XXXV6Ԁon X employers,Congresssoughttoprovidemeaningfulprotectiontoemployeebeneficiaries.RecentrecognitionthatERISA'sfiduciaryobligationscompelaffirmativedisclosuremaypromptrethinkingofthisstrategy.SeeBinsv.ExxonCo.,189F.3d929,939(9thCir. ( x 1999)(holdingthat"onceanemployer-fiduciaryseriouslyconsidersaproposaltoimplementachangeinERISAbenefits,ithasanaffirmativedutytodiscloseinformationabouttheproposaltoallplanparticipantsandbeneficiariestowhomtheemployerknows,orhasreasontoknow,thattheinformationismaterial").#XV6XX XV6#XXXXV6 ~ u$      11    _ XV6XXX ` Thecourtisalsofreetoconsiderthehybridprocedure,  calledtoourattentionatargument,thatwasadoptedinPallazola x v.Rucker,621F.Supp.764,77071(D.Mass.1985),inwhichJudge @ Keetonoptedtodeferdecisionuntilsuchtimeasthestatecourthaddeterminedwhetherthestatuteoflimitationswouldbartheclaiminstatecourt.#XV6XX XV6r#XXXXV6 u$      *    _OftheSouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation.  u$      2    _ ` XJXXXThecourtalsofoundallbutoneofthealleged  misrepresentationsmadebyCGCanditschiefhumanresourcesofficer,appelleeWilliams,tobeimmaterial,andhencenotabreachofthefiduciarydutyowedbyERISAplanadministratorstotheirbeneficiaries.See29U.S.C.1109,1132.Givenour   disposition,Williams'personalliabilityisnolongeratissue.Therefore,werefertoappelleessimplyasCGC.#XJXX XJ}#XzXXXJ<( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular  u$      3    _ ` XJXXXHorninginitiallygavenoticetoretireeffective  February1,butsteppeddownamonthearlyafterbeingassuredthattherewasnoincentiveplanforthcoming.#XJXX XJ}#XzXXXJ<( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTQ 9Z+.Courier New RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular  u$      5    _XJXXX ` Thecourtalsodismissedappellants'federalcommonlaw  claimsofequitableestoppel,fraud,andnegligentmisrepresentationasduplicativeoftheERISAclaim.O'Connor,85 @ F.Supp.2dat6162.Althoughwehaverecognizedourequitablepowerstofashionacommonlawremedythrough"interstitiallawmaking"whereERISAdoesnotprovideone,e.g.Vartanianv.  Monsanto,14F.3d697,703(1stCir.1994),thisisnotthe `  appropriatecaseinwhichtodoso.SeeMauserv.RaytheonCo., ( x 239F.3d51,57(1stCir.2001)("[W]emustexercisecautionincreatingnewcommonlawrulesforpensionplans;weshouldonlyactwhenthereis,infact,agapinthestructureofERISAorintheexistingfederalcommonlawrelatingtoERISA.").BecauseweconcludethattherewasnoERISAplan,wewouldbehardpressedtoextendtheprotectionsofthestatute.#XJXX XJq#XzXXXJ<( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular  u$      6    _ ` XJXXXAlthoughthisstandardwasthesourceofsomeconfusion  inthedistrictcourt,seeO'Connor,85F.Supp.2dat55n.6,the x mixupappearstohavestemmedfromafailurefullytoappreciatethatBelangerwasaposttrialappeal,whereasRodowiczandBaig X wereappealsfromsummaryjudgmentorders.<( 9Z+&Courier Regular  u$      7    _ ` XJXXXAstheSupremeCourthasrecognized,thestatutory  definitionofan"employeepensionbenefitplan"istautological,defininganERISAplanas"anyplan,fund,orprogram...thatbyitsexpresstermsorasaresultofsurroundingcircumstances...providesretirementincometoemployees."29U.S.C.1002(2)(A);seeFortHalifaxPackingCo.v.Coyne,482U.S.1,89  (1987);seealsoDemarsv.CignaCorp.,173F.3d443,445(1stCir. `  ] 1999);Belanger,71F.3dat454#XJXX XJ}#XzXXXJ#XJXXXz#XJXXXJ.#XJXX XJH#XzXXXJ<( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular  y$  =TXdd=    7    _ ` XZXXXIncidentally,bothO'ConnorandHorninghadsurpassed  thisthreedecademilestoneandthereforewouldhavebeenentitledtothemaximumseverancebonusallowableunderthePRP.#XTXXXZ#<( 9Z+&Courier RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular  y$  =TXdd=    8    _ ` XZXXXAvirtuallyidentical"5&5"provisionwasrejectedbyCGC  andscaledbacktoamaximumcreditof78months'service.See x O'Connor,85F.Supp.2dat52.#XTXXXZ#<( 9Z+&Courier RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular 7 u$      10    _ ` XJXXXTheConsolidatedOmnibusBudgetReconciliationActof  1985(COBRA),29U.S.C.1162,anamendmenttoERISA,requiresemployerstocontinueinsurancecoverageforuptoeighteenmonthsafterseparationforthoseemployeeswhocontinuetopaytheirownpremium.UnderthePRP,CGCpaidthosepremiumsforatleastayear.#XJXX XJ~#XzXXXJ<( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular  u$      11    _ ` XJXXXIronically,employersengagedinERISAlitigation  typicallyarguethattheirplansarecoveredbythefederalstatuteinanefforttopreemptstatelawclaims.Suchapositionseemsincongruousbecause,byimposingERISA'sfiduciaryobligation#XJXX XJ~#XzXXXJ#XJXXXz#XJXXXJԀon X employers,Congresssoughttoprovidemeaningfulprotectiontoemployeebeneficiaries.RecentrecognitionthatERISA'sfiduciaryobligationscompelaffirmativedisclosuremaypromptrethinkingofthisstrategy.SeeBinsv.ExxonCo.,189F.3d929,939(9thCir. ( x 1999)(holdingthat"onceanemployer-fiduciaryseriouslyconsidersaproposaltoimplementachangeinERISAbenefits,ithasanaffirmativedutytodiscloseinformationabouttheproposaltoallplanparticipantsandbeneficiariestowhomtheemployerknows,orhasreasontoknow,thattheinformationismaterial").#XJXX XJ #XzXXXJ<( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular  y$  =TXdd=    11    _XZXXX ` Thecourtisalsofreetoconsiderthehybridprocedure,  calledtoourattentionatargument,thatwasadoptedinPallazola x v.Rucker,621F.Supp.764,77071(D.Mass.1985),inwhichJudge @ Keetonoptedtodeferdecisionuntilsuchtimeasthestatecourthaddeterminedwhetherthestatuteoflimitationswouldbartheclaiminstatecourt.#XTXXXZ#<( 9Z+&Courier RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regular !  _TRX3'X3' Letter3' Letter3'T ? * !X(XXXU_XX(     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsoU_  FortheFirstCircuit _oXX_  A') ` dE< ` A    X XXXNo.0  001798K (#(# @,,"JOSEPHOCONNOR,@ Plaintiff,Appellant,  ____________________PETERHORNING,Plaintiff,@@tt)v.@@P P COMMONWEALTHGASCOMPANY,JOHNWILLIAMS,COMMONWEALTHENERGYSYSTEM,ANDWILLIAM_POIST_,@@Defendants,Appellees.A') ` dE<Z` A [   No.0  0017992(#(# @,,"JOSEPHOCONNOR,  Plaintiff,____________________PETERHORNING,@@Plaintiff,Appellant,DFElEFEEDD}DF: #  *      :F@@tt)v.@@P P COMMONWEALTHGASCOMPANY,JOHNWILLIAMS,COMMONWEALTHENERGYSYSTEM,ANDWILLIAM_POIST_,@@Defendants,Appellees.A') ` dE<A(` A B(#-   )i$/? @@` ` APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT@@0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS@@[Hon.MorrisE._Lasker_,G! #  *      GSeniorU.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<_ ` A `  @@'Before@@_Selya_,CircuitJudge,    Coffin,SeniorCircuitJudge,    andLipez,CircuitJudge. W   A') ` dE<` A         DavidMillerforappellants.     DavidS.Rubin,withwhomChristopherNovellowasonbrief, N  forappellees*'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +   n  J SI" @37040@SJJ 0&" 0JIMay30,_2001I_ 0&!b" 0("  (  * !  @  : _@A  ACA=JXdd=ACAABAABA8V6XXdXXd8n*,X` XX* ` AHHACOFFIN,SeniorCircuitJudge. Thiscaserequiresusto  revisitthecriteriathatbringanearlyretirementincentiveplanwithinthecoverageoftheEmployeeRetirementIncomeSecurityActof1974(ERISA),codifiedasamendedat29U.S.C.10011416andinscatteredsectionsofTitle26.AppellantsO'ConnorandHorning,retireesofappelleeCommonwealthGasCompany(CGC),appealfromanadversesummaryjudgmentinwhichthedistrictcourtheldthatCGC's1997PersonnelReductionProgram(PRP),anearlyretirementincentive,wasanERISAplanthatpreemptedvariousstatelawclaims.DoDD~D #  1      ׀Weconcludethat,becausethePRPwaslittle ` morethanalumpsumseverancepackage,itwasnotanERISAcoveredplan.Consequently,wereverseandremandsothatthedistrictcourtmayconsiderwhethertoassertsupplementaljurisdictionandaddressthestateclaims.  BACKGROUND 0 R ` Becauseourdeterminationturnsonapurequestionoflaw,wechronicletheunderlyingdisputebrieflyandreferreaderstothedistrictcourt'spublishedrulingforamoredetailedrecitationofthefacts.SeeO'Connorv.CommonwealthGasCo.,85  !p$  F.Supp.2d49,5253(D.Mass.2000). "&  ` InJanuary1997,CGCdecidedtomergewithits counterpartutility,theCommonwealthElectricCompany,whichalongwithCGCwasasubsidiaryofacommonholdingcompany,CommonwealthEnergySystems(CES).ThependingconsolidationwasfirstdisclosedtoseniorofficersofCESandlaterdiscussedatameetingoftheCESboardasameansofreducingthetotalworkforce.ByalettertoemployeesdatedFebruary6,1997,themergerwaspubliclyannounced,aswasCES'sintentiontoeliminate15percentoftheworkforce,whichithopedtoaccomplish"throughattritionandapersonnelreductionprogram[it]plan[ned]tooffertocertainemployees."ThefirstmeetingtodevelopthatplanoccurredinFebruary;adraftwascreatedbymidMarchandfinalizedonMay13,theeffectivedateofthePRP. ` ThePRPcontainedseveralbenefitsforemployeeswhooptedtoretire:aseverancebonus,pensioncredit,paymentofCOBRApremiums,andreimbursementforeducationalassistanceandADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz# XZXXXTADAoutplacementservices.Inexchange,employeeswhoelectedtostepdownearlywererequiredtosignreleases,noncompetitionandconfidentialityagreements,andtoforegotheirannualbonusfortheyearinwhichtheyoptedtoretire.Thisdealwasofferedtoallnonofficeremployeesduringafifteenweekperiodinthesummerof1997.CGCreservedtherighttolimitparticipationto300employees,andtodelaytheretirementofanyemployeewhoelectedtoparticipateforuptooneyear.Furtherdetailsofthe planpertinenttoouranalysiswillbeoutlinedinthediscussion. 0*%0  ` AppellantsO'ConnorandHorning,bothlongtimeemployees ofCGC,weredeniedbenefitsunderthePRPafterretiringonFebruary1andJanuary1,1997,respectively.DpDDD #  2      ׀Theybroughtthis   actionclaimingthatmaterialmisrepresentationsmadebyagentsofCGCmisledthemintoretiringbeforetheeffectivedateofthePRP.ThedistrictcourtfoundmostoftheallegedmisstatementstobeimmaterialbecausetheyweremadebeforethePRPwasunderseriousconsideration.DqDDtD #  3      ׀SeeO'Connor,85F.Supp.2dat5961.Weneed   notaddressthetimingormaterialityoftheallegedmisrepresentationsbecauseourholdingthatthePRPwasnotanERISAplanmootsthoseissues;absentanERISAplan,CGCowednofiduciaryobligationstoappellantsunderfederalADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz# XZXXXTADAlaw.DrDDD #  4      ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz{# XZXXXTADA 0  ` Afterinitiallydismissingappellants'statecommonlaw p claimsaspreemptedADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz # XZXXXTADAbecausebothpartiesagreedatthattimethe P PRPwasanERISAplanADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXzV!# XZXXXTADA,thedistrictcourtreconsideredthatissueatlengthinitssummaryjudgmentruling,respondingtoappellants'opposition.SeeO'Connor,85F.Supp.2dat5359.Recognizing   ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz"# XZXXXTADAthattheseverancebonusdidnotimplicateERISA,thecourtneverthelessheldthatthe"composite"constructedfromtheotherelementsofthePRPcoupledwithCGC'sintentmadethePRPacoveredplan.Id.at53.Ourreviewleadsustotheopposite `  conclusion.    ` WereviewdenovoADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz$# XZXXXTADAadistrictcourt'ssummaryjudgmentADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz4%# XZXXXTADA 0  determinationthataplanisgovernedbyERISA.Rodowiczv.Mass.  Mut.LifeIns.Co.,192F.3d162,170,amendedby195F.3d65(1st P Cir.1999);ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz&# XZXXXTADANewEnglandMut.LifeIns.Co.v.Baig,166F.3d1,3 0 (1stCir.1999);cf.Belangerv.WymanGordonCo.,71F.3d451, p 45354(1stCir.1995)(applyingclearerrorstandardtoreviewofposttrialdetermination).DsDDD #  5      ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz(# XZXXXTADA    DISCUSSION  p * ` BeforedissectingtheconstituentelementsofthePRP,wereviewthelegalframework.Sincethestatutorylanguagehasproventobeunhelpful,DwxDDxD #  6      ׀wehavereliedoncaselawtodiscernwhen  $ abenefitprogramconstitutesanERISAplan.InFortHalifax,the  CourtmadeclearthatagivenplanmustbeevaluatedinlightofCongress'purposesinenactingERISA.454U.S.at8.Paramountamongthoseaimswastosafeguardemployeeinterestsbyreducingthethreatofabuseormismanagementoffunds.Massachusettsv.  @ Morash,490U.S.107,115(1989)ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz,# XZXXXTADA("InenactingERISA,Congress'    primaryconcernwaswiththemismanagementoffundsaccumulatedtofinanceemployeebenefitsandthefailuretopayemployeesbenefitsfromaccumulatedfunds.");ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz-# XZXXXTADAseealsoDemars,173F.3dat446 0  ("ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz.# XZXXXTADACongresswantedtosafeguardemployeeinterestsbyreducingthethreatofabuseormismanagementoffundsthathadbeenaccumulatedtofinanceemployeebenefits....")ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz/# XZXXXTADA;Belanger,71F.3dat454 0 ("ERISA'ssubstantiveprotectionsareintendedtosafeguardthefinancialintegrityofemployeebenefitfunds,topermitemployeemonitoringofearmarkedassets,andtoensurethatemployers'promisesarekept.");accordADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz^1# XZXXXTADABaig,166F.3dat3ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz1# XZXXXTADA.Itisbygauging  p thelevelofemployeroversightoverpensionfundsthatthe"plan"determinationmustbemade. ` InevaluatingwhetheragivenprogramfallsunderERISA,wehavelookedto"'thenatureandextentofanemployer'sbenefitobligations.'"Rodowicz,192F.3dat170(quotingBelanger,71 #@( F.3dat454).Thoseobligationsarethetouchstoneofthedetermination:iftheyrequireanongoingadministrativeschemethatissubjecttomismanagement,thentheywillmorelikelyconstituteanERISAplan;butifthebenefitobligationsaremerely 0*%0 aoneshot,takeitorleaveitincentive,theyarelesslikelytobecovered.Particularlygermanetoassessinganemployer'sobligationsistheamountofdiscretionwieldedinimplementingthem.Wheresubjectivejudgmentswouldcallupontheintegrityofanemployer'sadministration,thefiduciarydutyimposedbyERISAisvital.Butwherebenefitobligationsareadministeredbyamechanicalformulathatcontemplatesnoexerciseofdiscretion,theneedforERISA'sprotectionsisdiminished. ` Thepurported"plan"atissueinFortHalifaxis 0  illustrative.Itwasaonetime,lumpsumseverancebenefit,whichtheCourthelddidnotconstituteanERISAplanbecauseitdidnotimplicatetheemployer's"administrativeintegrity."Id.at15 0 ("Thefocusof[ERISA]isontheadministrativeintegrityofbenefitplanswhichpresumesthatsometypeofadministrativeactivityistakingplace.");seealsoBaig,166F.3dat4("[W]e  willbeinclinedtofindaplanwherethereareelementsthat'involveadministrativeactivitypotentiallysubjecttoemployerabuse.'"(quotingFortHalifax,482U.S.at16));Belanger,71F.3d @" at454("[O]ngoinginvestmentsandobligationsareuniquelyvulnerabletoemployerabuseoremployercarelessness,andthusrequireERISA'sspecialprophylaxis."). ` TheFortHalifaxCourtalsoemphasizedthat"Congress % * pre-emptedstatelawsrelatingtoplans,ratherthansimplyto '`", benefits."Id.at1112(emphasisinoriginal).Itdistinguished (@$. betweenplans,underwhichbenefitsADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz;# XZXXXTADAaredistributed,andbenefitsbecause"[o]nly'plans'involveadministrativeactivitypotentially `,'2 subjecttoemployerabuse."Id.at16.ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz%=# XZXXXTADAWemustthereforeevaluate  apurportedplanlikethePRPasaunifiedwhole. ` ThedeterminationofwhatconstitutesanERISAplanthusturnsmostoftenonthedegreeofanemployer'sdiscretioninadministeringtheplan.Ourcaseshavenotedthatsuch  @ determinationsarenotclearcutandnecessarilyrequirelinedrawing.SeeSimasv.QuakerFabricCorp.,6F.3d849,853(1st `  Cir.1993)("ItisamatterofdegreesbutunderFortHalifax   degreesarecrucial.")ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz?# XZXXXTADA;accordRodowicz,192F.3dat172;Belanger, 0  71F.3dat454.Forthisreason,ourprecedentsaddressingbenefitssimilartothoseinthePRPareparticularlyinstructive,andwediscussthosecasesinthecontextofdetailingthefourenhancedretirementbenefitsofferedintheprogramhere.OurexaminationofthePRPbenefitsleadsustoconcludethattheseveranceprovision,whichwastheprimarycomponentADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz8B# XZXXXTADAofthePRP,doesnotfallunderERISA.AlthoughotherprovisionsmighttendtoimplicateERISA,weholdthatthesebearlittleweightcomparedtothenonERISAnatureADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXzsC# XZXXXTADAofthePRP'scentralseverancebenefit.ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXzD# XZXXXTADAADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXzD# XZXXXTADANordoesCGC'sintent,whichwasfarfromunequivocal,factorsignificantlyinthebalanceinthiscase.SeveranceBonus #@(  ` TheseverancebonuswasthemeatandpotatoesofthePRP.LiketheseveranceatissueinFortHalifax,itprovidedforaone '`", time,lumpsumpayment.Theseverancebonuswasbasedontenure,calculatedattherateoftwoandahalfweeks'payforeachofthefirsttenyearsofserviceplustwoweeksforeachadditionalyear, +'2 uptoamaximumof78weeks'salary(for37yearsofservice).DxDDD #  7      ׀  ThemethodofcalculationwasexplainedinthePRP:"CalculationsforseverancepaymentsunderthisProgramwillbebasedontheemployee'sauthorizedrateofpay...andeachfullyearofSystemserviceatthetimeofseparation."Simplearithmeticthusdictatedtheamountofthebonus. ` ThePRP'sseveranceprovisionfitscomfortablywithinthecategoryofbenefitswehavedeemednotsubjecttoERISAcoveragebecauseoftheirlimited,nondiscretionarynature.InBelanger, 0  forexample,weheldthataseriesofincreasinglymorelucrativeseveranceincentives,alsobasedonyearsofservice,didnotanERISAplanmakebecausethosebonuses"requirednocomplicatedadministrativeapparatuseithertocalculateortodistributethepromisedbenefit."71F.3dat455.Morerecently,inRodowicz,we P heldthatavoluntaryterminationprogram,whichincludedaseveranceremarkablysimilartothePRP,wasnotanERISAplan.192F.3dat17172.LikethePRP,theRodowiczseverancewas   calculatedbymultiplyingsomenumberofweeks'salarybyyearsofservice;ittoowascappedat78weeks;ittoowasofferedtomostemployeesduringanarrowwindowofopportunity(fiveweeks);andittooconditionedtheenhancedbenefitontheemployer'sabilitytodeferretirement(foruptosixmonths).Id.at167.Although % *  thePRP'selectionwindowanddeferralperiodwerelonger,weagree '`", withthedistrictcourtthatthosedifferencesareimmaterial.See  O'Connor,85F.Supp.2dat56. @   ` Insomeways,theRodowiczincentiveinvolvedevenmore   discretionthanthePRPortheseverancepackagesinBelanger.It `  authorizedcertainexclusionsforthoseterminatedinvoluntarilyandprovidedanappealsprocessforaggrievedemployeestochallengethatdetermination,whichmadeit"somewhatlessmechanicalandunthinking."Rodowicz,192F.3dat17172.Despite   thesemorediscretionaryelements,theRodowiczseverancewasnot 0  anERISAplanbecauseit"didnotrequirethattheCompanymakealongtermfinancialcommitmenttoanyemployeewhochosetoparticipate."Id.at171. 0  ` UnliketheRodowiczprogram,thePRPlimitedthenumber p ofemployeeswhocouldenroll,butthisprovisiondoesnotdemandtheprotectionsofERISA.AsstatedinthePRP,CGCreservedtherighttolimititsincentiveofferto300employees,asizableportionoftheeligibleworkforce.Ifdemandexceededthatnumber,thechoiceofeligibleemployeeswouldnotberandom;itwouldbebasedonyearsofservice.Thougha"yearsofservice"standardnecessarilyrequiresindividualizeddeterminations,cf.O'Connor, `"& 85F.Supp.2dat56,suchassessmentsdonotimplicateERISAunlesstheyarebasedonnonmechanical,subjectivecriteriathatcouldintheirapplicationbesubjecttoemployerabuse.See '`", Rodowicz,192F.3dat167;Belanger,71F.3dat452.Asthe (#. districtcourtpointedout,therewasnoevidencethatthiscontingentexclusionhadactuallybeeninvoked,O'Connor,85F. +'2 Supp.2dat55,butevenifithad,limitingincentiveofferstothemostsenioremployeesbasedontenurecouldhardlybemoreobjective,ortheapplicationofyearsofservicemoremechanical. ` ThattheseverancebonusofthePRPfallsonthenonERISAsideofthelineisreinforcedbycomparisontoplansweandothercourtshavedeemedcoveredbyERISA.InSimas,forexample,    wefoundthataseverancebonusforwhichemployeeswereeligibleduringatwentyfourmonthelectionperiod,ifnotfiredforcause,implicatedtheprotectionsofERISAbecause"thetimeperiod[wa]sprolonged,individualizeddecisions[we]rerequired,andatleastoneofthecriteria[wa]sfarfrommechanical."6F.3dat854.IncontrasttobothBelangerandRodowicz,Simas'sforcausecriterion 0 involvedthetypeofdiscretionarydeterminationsubjecttoabusethattriggersanemployer'sfiduciaryobligationtoitsbeneficiaries.Cf.Emmeneggerv.BullMooseTubeCo.,197F.3d  929,935(8thCir.1999)(findingERISAplanwhereeligibilityforseverancerequiredemployerto"makeanadhocjudgmentaboutthereasonfortheemployee'sterminationandevaluatethequalityofthatperson'sservice");Collinsv.RalstonPurinaCo.,147F.3d  $ 592,597(7thCir.1998)(relyinginpartonSimastoholdthat `"& retentioncontractthatcalledforpaymentofseveranceintheeventofa"substantialreductionofdutiesorresponsibilities"wasanERISAplanbecauseemployerwas"requiredtoexercisediscretiononanongoingbasis"andtomake"nonclerical'judgmentcalls'");Schonholzv.LongIslandJewishMed.Ctr.,87F.3d72,76 0*%0 (2dCir.1996)(concludingthataseveranceconditionedon +'2 involuntarilyterminatedemployee'sgoodfaithefforttoobtaincommensurateemploymentelsewhereimplicatedERISAbecauseitnecessitated"managerialdiscretion").Insum,theseveranceprovisionisaclassicnonERISAbenefit. `  OtherBenefits  @  ` ThethreeotherelementsofthePRPeducationalassistance,pensioncreditADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz`^# XZXXXTADA,andCOBRApremiumsADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz^# XZXXXTADA񀄀appeartobelittlemorethanafterthoughtstotheseverancebonus.Comparedtotheseverance,theywouldnotlikelyhavefactoredsignificantlyintoanemployee'sdecisiontoretireearly.Wereviewbrieflyeachoftheseotherbenefits.ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXzx`# XZXXXTADA ` Thefirstsuchbenefitwaseducationandoutplacementassistancethroughwhichanemployeewouldbereimbursedupto$5,000for"acourseofstudyrelatedtooccupationalorprofessionalskilldevelopment"orforservicessuchascounseling,resumepreparationorinterviewpractice.ThedistrictcourtheldthisbenefittobewithinERISA'spurview.O'Connor,85F.Supp.   2dat57;butcf.Kempv.Int'lBus.Mach.Corp.,109F.3d708, @" 71011(11thCir.1997)(wherepartiesagreedthat$2500RetirementEducationAssistanceProgramwasnotanERISAbenefit).Eveniftheassessmentofwhethera"courseofstudy"was"relatedto...skilldevelopment"isthekindofsubjectivedeterminationemployersmightbeapttoabuse,thedegreeofdiscretionexercisedwouldbenegligiblebecausetheeducationalassistancebenefit,liketheseverancebonus,wasaonetimepaymentandwasavailableonlywithinayearofretirement.Thatminimalamountof +'2 discretionattendanttotheeducationassistancebenefitwaswhollyabsentfromtheoutplacementservicesbenefit. ` EmployeeswhooptedforthePRPalsoreceivedapensioncreditequaltothenumberofweeksrepresentedbytheseverance.Thatis,employeeslikeHorningandO'Connorwithover37years'servicewhoreceivedthemaximumseverancebonuswouldbecreditedwithanadditional78weeksofservice,enablingthemtocollecttheirnonPRPpensionbenefitssooner.Thedistrictcourt,relyingonanextracircuitcasethatdidnotdirectlyaddressthequestionofwhatconstitutesanERISAplan,heldthatthepensioncreditimplicatedERISAbecauseCGCwouldbeobligatedtopay"[a]slongaspensioneligibleparticipantsinthePRParealive."O'Connor, 0 85F.Supp.2dat57.Thisconnotesamoresignificantundertakingthanthefactsjustify.CGC'sobligationtopayitsemployeesapensionaroseunderadifferentretirementplan(undoubtedlycoveredbyERISA)thatantedatedthePRP.TheonlychangemadebythePRPtothatpreexistingdefinedpensionbenefitplanwastostartdisbursementssooner.ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXzi# XZXXXTADAOnceanemployeeelectedtoretireunderthePRP,thecreditenhancementwouldsimplybeaddedtohisaccruedtimeinservice.Aswiththeseverance,theamountofthataccelerationwascalculatedaccordingtoasimplearithmeticformula.Thepensioncredit,liketheseverancebonus,wasalumpsumbenefittimeinsteadofcashthatleftnodiscretiontoCGCincalculatinghowmuchsoonerretireeswhooptedforthePRPwouldbeginreceivingdisbursementsfromtheirpensions.Assuch,itdidnotimplicateERISA.ButseeFischerv.PhiladelphiaElec.Co.,96 +'2 F.3d1533,1536(3dCir.1996)(assumingwithoutanalysisthataseverancepackagethatincludedpensioncreditoffiveyearsfortimeinserviceandfiveyearsforagewasanERISAplan).DyDDD #  8          ` ThelastPRPbenefit,thepaymentofCOBRADzDDD #  9      ADAXzXX XJ# XJXXXz