Filed June 11, 2014
Because ERISA’s definition of a pension plan is so broad, virtually any contract that provides for some type of deferred compensation will also establish a de facto pension plan, whether or not the parties intended to do so.” Modzelewski, 14 F.3d at 1377 (emphasis added). It is inherent in this principle that a benefit plan that provides for a distribution of awards during employment may, at the same time, constitute an ERISA-covered plan.
Filed June 4, 2014
Both are distinguishable from the instant case. Defendants cite to Modzelewski v. RTC, 14 F.3d 1374, 1376-1377 (9th Cir. 1994), and assert that essentially any contract that defers some compensation in any manner is a pension plan subject to ERISA. (MTD at 8:8-12).
Filed May 21, 2014
The definition of pension plans subject to ERISA has been interpreted very broadly in the Ninth Circuit: "ERISA's definition of a pension plan is so broad, virtually any contract that provides for some type of deferred compensation will also establish a de facto pension plan, whether or not the parties intended to do so.” Modzelewski v. RTC, 14 F.3d 1374, 1376-77 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis added). As described above, the DIF Plan explicitly calls for payment of distributions upon the occurrence of four events: (1) the participating employee’s separation from service (early retirement, retirement, termination without cause, and planned termination); (2) the date the participating employee becomes disabled; (3) the participating employee’s date of death; or (4) the occurrence of an unforeseen emergency.