Judge Stranch’s majority opinionIn Wilson, the plaintiff sued his former employer in federal court, asserting state law claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation in connection with the defendant employer’s deferred compensation plan. The district court granted the defendant employer’s summary judgment motion, ruling that those state law claims were preempted by ERISA because in relevant part the deferred compensation plan met the statutory definition of an “employee pension benefit plan” under 29 U.S.C. §1002(2).According to Judge Stranch’s majority opinion, the “starting point is the language of the statute,” although the opinion added that the statutory language must be interpreted in light of the “structure, history, and purpose” of the statutory scheme — not in a “vacuum.”The key was the interpretation of the word “results” and the phrase “for periods extending to the termination of covered employment or beyond” in ERISA’s §1002(2).

A church plan is generally defined under ERISA as a plan “established and maintained” by a church (including other places of worship) or by a convention or association of churches for its employees. See 29 U.S.C. §1002(33)(A). “Employee of a church” for this purpose includes employees of church-affiliated organizations.

If a benefit plan is a “church plan,” it is exempt from the statute and is not required to adhere to ERISA requirements. A “church plan” is defined as “a plan established and maintained . . . for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33)(A). The statute continues:A plan established and maintained for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church . . . includes a plan maintained by an organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, the principal purpose or function of which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both, for the employees of a church . . . if such organization is controlled by or associated with a church.

If a benefit plan is a “church plan,” it is exempt from the statute and is not required to adhere to ERISA requirements. A “church plan” is defined as “a plan established and maintained . . . for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33)(A). The statute continues: A plan established and maintained for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church . . . includes a plan maintained by an organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, the principal purpose or function of which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both, for the employees of a church . . . if such organization is controlled by or associated with a church.

The Court noted that ERISA defines an “employee welfare benefit plan” as “any plan, fund, or program … established or maintained by an employer … to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained for the purposes of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries … (B) any benefit described in section 186(c) of this title [other than pension benefits].” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1). Although severance benefits are clearly among those described in § 186(c), the Court opined that the words “plan” and “program” in § 1002(1) “strongly imply benefits that an employer provides to a class of employees.”

nded to serve as a practical guide to employers on how the DOL determines whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [29 CFR part 795]. This new guidance may impact employee classification under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), because the federal law is premised upon the existence of the employee-employer relationship [29 USC §1001]. ERISA governs the operation and administration of covered health and welfare and pension benefit plans by imposing minimum coverage and vesting requirements as well as heightened fiduciary responsibility for plan sponsors. It requires reasonable claims procedures and gives participants the rights necessary to enforce their benefit entitlement under ERISA covered plans.ERISA defines “employee” as an individual employed by an employer, language which provides inadequate guidance to employers in the administration of their ERISA covered employee benefit plans [29 USC §1002(6)]. For this reason, plan sponsors often rely upon federal common law to determine whether a worker qualifies as an employee and is therefore eligible to participate in employer-sponsored employee benefit plans. Employee status is also central to determining whether an arrangement is actually subject to ERISA. Although the new rules are intended to provide worker classification guidance for purposes of minimum wage and overtime pay eligibility under the FLSA, plan sponsors are encouraged to use the guidance as a resource when analyzing a worker’s employee or independent contractor status under ERISA.Economic Realities TestThe new regulations articulate an “economic realities” test to determine employee versus independent contractor status, a test based on the worker’s entire working relationship with the employer. If the economic realities demonstrate that the worker is economically dependent on the employer for work, then the worker is an employee. If the economic realities show that t

[A] plan maintained by an organization … the principal purpose or function of which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both, for the employees of a church or a convention or association of churches, if such organization is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches.29 U.S.C. §1002(33)(C)(i).The District Courts hearing those cases agreed with the employees, holding that a plan had to be established by a church to qualify as a church plan.

In a nutshell, a “church plan” is a plan that is established and maintained “by a church or by a convention or association of churches which is exempt from tax under section 501 of title 26.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33)(A). Church plans are not subject to the reporting, disclosure, participation, vesting and funding requirements that are imposed on most retirement plans (as well as health and welfare plans) under ERISA.

In a nutshell, a “church plan” is a plan that is established and maintained “by a church or by a convention or association of churches which is exempt from tax under section 501 of title 26.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33)(A). Church plans are not subject to the reporting, disclosure, participation, vesting and funding requirements that are imposed on most retirement plans (as well as health and welfare plans) under ERISA.

The original ERISA statute provided an exemption for “church plans”, defined as “a plan established and maintained . . . for its employees . . . by a church.” 29 U.S.C. §1002(33)(A). Congress amended the statute in 1980 in part to add a section that formed the basis of the dispute before the Court as follows: “A plan established and maintained . . . by a church . . . includes a plan maintained by an organization .