fort
halifax
packing
coyne
argued
march
decided
june
appellant
closed
poultry
packaging
processing
plant
laid
employees
worked
director
maine
bureau
labor
standards
filed
suit
enforce
provisions
state
statute
requiring
employers
event
plant
closing
provide
severance
payment
employees
covered
express
contract
providing
severance
pay
state
superior
granted
director
summary
judgment
holding
appellant
liable
statute
state
affirmed
rejecting
appellant
contentions
state
statute
employee
retirement
income
security
act
erisa
national
labor
relations
act
nlra
held
maine
severance
pay
statute
erisa
since
relate
employee
benefit
plan
statute
provision
appellant
contention
state
law
pertaining
type
employee
benefit
listed
erisa
severance
pay
necessarily
regulates
employee
benefit
plan
therefore
fails
light
plain
meaning
underlying
purpose
overall
objectives
erisa
pp
section
refer
state
laws
relating
simply
employee
benefits
expressly
state
laws
superseded
insofar
relate
employee
benefit
plan
emphasis
added
fact
erisa
uses
words
benefit
plan
separately
throughout
statute
nowhere
treats
equivalent
given
basic
difference
two
concepts
congress
choice
language
significant
latter
read
erisa
order
state
statute
must
connection
reference
plan
pp
maine
statute
purpose
erisa
allow
plans
adopt
uniform
scheme
coordinating
complex
administrative
activities
unaffected
conflicting
regulatory
requirements
differing
maine
statute
neither
establishes
requires
employer
maintain
plan
embody
set
administrative
practices
vulnerable
burden
imposed
patchwork
multistate
regulatory
scheme
fact
theoretical
possibility
severance
payment
triggered
single
event
requires
administrative
scheme
whatsoever
meet
employer
statutory
obligation
pp
similarly
maine
statute
implicate
regulatory
concerns
erisa
enacted
ensure
administrative
integrity
operation
plans
preventing
potential
fiduciary
abuse
maine
statute
neither
establishes
plan
generates
administrative
activity
capable
abused
pp
appellant
contention
failure
maine
statute
allow
employers
circumvent
erisa
persuading
require
types
plans
employers
otherwise
established
force
respect
state
statute
establish
plan
generates
program
activity
presents
risk
otherwise
applicable
federal
requirements
evaded
employer
dislodged
state
creates
prospect
employer
face
difficulty
operating
unified
administrative
benefit
payment
scheme
holland
burlington
industries
summarily
aff
gilbert
burlington
industries
summarily
aff
distinguished
pp
state
statute
creates
danger
conflict
federal
statute
reason
disable
attempting
address
uniquely
local
social
economic
problems
maine
severance
pay
statute
nlra
appellant
argument
statute
establishment
minimum
labor
standard
impermissibly
intrudes
upon
process
rejected
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
without
merit
although
statute
give
employees
something
might
otherwise
bargain
true
state
law
substantively
regulates
employment
conditions
moreover
appellant
argument
case
distinguishable
metropolitan
life
statutory
obligation
issue
optional
applies
absence
agreement
employer
employees
persuasive
since
fact
parties
freedom
devise
severance
pay
arrangements
strengthens
case
statute
works
intrusion
collective
bargaining
thus
statute
valid
unexceptional
exercise
state
police
power
compatible
nlra
pp
brennan
delivered
opinion
marshall
blackmun
powell
stevens
joined
white
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
joined
post
john
yavis
argued
cause
appellant
briefs
thomas
cloherty
barry
waters
thomas
warren
assistant
attorney
general
maine
argued
cause
appellees
brief
appellee
coyne
james
tierney
attorney
general
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
solicitor
general
fried
deputy
solicitor
general
ayer
christopher
wright
george
salem
allen
feldman
chamber
commerce
richard
moon
linda
mcgill
john
rich
iii
stephen
bokat
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
american
federation
labor
congress
industrial
organizations
marsha
berzon
laurence
gold
employment
law
center
et
al
joan
graff
robert
barnes
john
true
patricia
shiu
james
eggleston
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
case
must
decide
whether
maine
statute
requiring
employers
provide
severance
payment
employees
event
plant
closing
rev
stat
tit
supp
either
employee
retirement
income
security
act
stat
amended
erisa
national
labor
relations
act
stat
amended
nlra
statute
upheld
maine
superior
civ
action
maine
judicial
noted
probable
jurisdiction
affirm
fort
halifax
packing
company
fort
halifax
company
purchased
poultry
packaging
processing
plant
operated
winslow
maine
almost
two
decades
company
continued
operate
plant
almost
another
decade
may
discontinued
operations
plant
laid
employees
except
several
maintenance
clerical
workers
time
closing
employees
payroll
worked
plant
years
years
years
plaintiff
supplementary
response
employee
list
exhibit
june
following
closing
company
met
state
officials
representatives
local
amalgamated
meat
cutters
butcher
workmen
north
america
represented
many
employees
worked
plant
fort
halifax
initially
suggested
reopening
plant
might
feasible
union
agreed
certain
concessions
form
amendments
agreement
ultimately
company
decided
resuming
operations
close
plant
october
employees
filed
suit
superior
seeking
severance
pay
pursuant
rev
stat
tit
supp
statute
set
forth
supra
provides
employer
terminates
operations
plant
employees
relocates
operations
miles
away
must
provide
one
week
pay
year
employment
employees
worked
plant
least
three
years
employer
liability
employee
accepts
employment
new
location
employee
covered
contract
deals
issue
severance
pay
authority
granted
statute
maine
director
bureau
labor
standards
also
commenced
action
enforce
provisions
state
law
action
superseded
suit
filed
employees
superior
ruling
summary
judgment
granted
director
motion
holding
fort
halifax
liable
severance
pay
statute
civ
action
maine
judicial
affirmed
rejected
company
contention
statute
erisa
holding
erisa
preempted
benefit
plans
created
employers
employee
organizations
observed
severance
pay
liability
case
results
operation
state
statute
rather
operation
benefit
plan
ibid
therefore
reasoned
nasmuch
implicate
plan
created
employer
employee
organization
said
preempted
erisa
ibid
also
rejected
argument
state
provision
nlra
regulated
conduct
covered
either
statute
found
maine
statute
applies
equally
union
nonunion
employees
reflects
state
substantial
interest
protecting
maine
citizens
economic
dislocation
accompanies
plant
closings
result
found
eligible
employees
entitled
severance
pay
due
closure
plant
winslow
hold
maine
statute
erisa
reason
offered
maine
judicial
statute
neither
establishes
requires
employer
maintain
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
federal
statute
hold
maine
law
nlra
since
establishes
minimum
labor
standard
intrude
upon
process
result
affirm
judgment
maine
judicial
maine
statute
either
erisa
nlra
ii
appellant
basic
argument
state
law
pertaining
type
employee
benefit
listed
erisa
necessarily
regulates
employee
benefit
plan
therefore
must
severance
benefits
included
erisa
see
appellant
argues
erisa
maine
statute
effect
appellant
argues
erisa
forecloses
virtually
state
legislation
regarding
employee
benefits
contention
fails
however
light
plain
language
erisa
provision
underlying
purpose
provision
overall
objectives
erisa
first
answer
appellant
argument
found
express
language
statute
erisa
provision
refer
state
laws
relating
employee
benefits
state
laws
relating
employee
benefit
plans
provisions
subchapter
shall
supersede
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
described
title
exempt
title
emphasis
added
thus
first
matter
language
erisa
presents
formidable
obstacle
appellant
argument
reason
congress
decision
legislate
respect
plans
rather
benefits
becomes
plain
upon
examination
purpose
section
regulatory
scheme
whole
second
answer
appellant
argument
preemption
maine
statute
purpose
erisa
analyzing
whether
erisa
preemption
section
applicable
maine
law
preemption
analysis
purpose
congress
ultimate
touchstone
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
quoting
malone
white
motor
attention
purpose
particularly
necessary
case
terms
employee
benefit
plan
plan
defined
tautologically
statute
described
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
employee
pension
benefit
plan
plan
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
employee
pension
benefit
plan
statements
erisa
sponsors
house
senate
clearly
disclose
problem
provision
intended
address
house
representative
dent
stated
preemption
field
employee
benefit
plans
round
protection
afforded
participants
eliminating
threat
conflicting
inconsistent
state
local
regulation
cong
rec
similarly
senator
williams
declared
stressed
narrow
exceptions
specified
bill
substantive
enforcement
provisions
conference
substitute
intended
preempt
field
federal
regulations
thus
eliminating
threat
conflicting
inconsistent
state
local
regulation
employee
benefit
plans
statements
reflect
recognition
administrative
realities
employee
benefit
plans
employer
makes
commitment
systematically
pay
certain
benefits
undertakes
host
obligations
determining
eligibility
claimants
calculating
benefit
levels
making
disbursements
monitoring
availability
funds
benefit
payments
keeping
appropriate
records
order
comply
applicable
reporting
requirements
efficient
way
meet
responsibilities
establish
uniform
administrative
scheme
provides
set
standard
procedures
guide
processing
claims
disbursement
benefits
system
difficult
achieve
however
benefit
plan
subject
differing
regulatory
requirements
differing
plan
required
keep
certain
records
others
make
certain
benefits
available
others
process
claims
certain
way
others
comply
certain
fiduciary
standards
others
hesitated
enforce
erisa
provision
state
law
created
prospect
employer
administrative
scheme
subject
conflicting
requirements
alessi
instance
struck
new
jersey
statute
prohibited
offsetting
worker
compensation
payments
pension
benefits
since
practice
permissible
federal
law
law
effect
statute
force
employer
either
structure
benefit
payments
accordance
new
jersey
law
adopt
different
payment
formulae
employees
inside
outside
state
employer
therefore
required
accommodate
conflicting
regulatory
schemes
devising
operating
system
processing
claims
paying
benefits
precisely
burden
erisa
intended
avoid
point
emphasized
shaw
supra
said
respect
another
form
state
regulation
obligating
employer
satisfy
varied
perhaps
conflicting
requirements
particular
state
fair
employment
laws
make
administration
nationwide
plan
difficult
situation
produce
considerable
inefficiencies
employer
might
choose
offset
lowering
benefit
levels
shaw
indicated
erisa
comprehensive
state
law
meant
minimize
sort
interference
administration
employee
benefit
plans
employers
administer
plans
differently
state
employees
omitted
concern
effect
state
regulation
administration
benefit
programs
reflected
shaw
holding
disability
programs
administered
separately
benefit
plans
fall
within
erisa
exemption
plans
maintained
purpose
complying
disability
insurance
laws
permit
exemption
apply
disability
benefits
paid
multibenefit
plan
held
inconsistent
purpose
erisa
provision
employer
employees
several
find
plan
subject
different
jurisdictional
pattern
regulation
state
depending
benefits
state
mandated
disability
workmen
compensation
unemployment
compensation
laws
administrative
impracticality
permitting
mutually
exclusive
pockets
federal
state
jurisdiction
within
plan
apparent
purposes
erisa
provision
make
clear
maine
statute
way
raises
types
concerns
prompted
congress
intended
afford
employers
advantages
uniform
set
administrative
procedures
governed
single
set
regulations
concern
arises
however
respect
benefits
whose
provision
nature
requires
ongoing
administrative
program
meet
employer
obligation
reason
congress
state
laws
relating
plans
rather
simply
benefits
plan
embodies
set
administrative
practices
vulnerable
burden
imposed
patchwork
scheme
regulation
maine
statute
neither
establishes
requires
employer
maintain
employee
benefit
plan
requirement
payment
triggered
single
event
requires
administrative
scheme
whatsoever
meet
employer
obligation
employer
assumes
responsibility
pay
benefits
regular
basis
thus
faces
periodic
demands
assets
create
need
financial
coordination
control
rather
employer
obligation
predicated
occurrence
single
contingency
may
never
materialize
employer
may
well
never
pay
severance
benefits
extent
obligation
arises
satisfaction
duty
involves
making
single
set
payments
employees
time
plant
closes
little
write
check
hardly
constitutes
operation
benefit
plan
single
event
employer
responsibility
theoretical
possibility
obligation
future
simply
creates
need
ongoing
administrative
program
processing
claims
paying
benefits
point
underscored
comparing
consequences
maine
statute
produced
state
statute
requiring
establishment
benefit
plan
standard
oil
california
agsalud
summarily
aff
instance
hawaii
required
employers
provide
employees
comprehensive
health
care
plan
hawaii
law
struck
posed
two
types
problems
first
employer
case
already
place
health
care
plan
governed
erisa
comply
respects
hawaii
act
employer
sought
achieve
administrative
efficiencies
integrating
hawaii
plan
existing
plan
different
components
single
plan
subject
different
requirements
established
separate
plan
administer
program
directed
hawaii
lose
benefits
maintaining
single
administrative
scheme
second
hawaii
demand
operation
particular
benefit
plan
require
employer
coordinate
perhaps
dozens
programs
agsalud
thus
illustrates
whether
state
requires
existing
plan
pay
certain
benefits
whether
requires
establishment
separate
plan
none
existed
problem
faced
difficulty
impossibility
structuring
administrative
practices
according
set
uniform
guidelines
employer
may
decide
reduce
benefits
simply
pay
contrast
maine
law
put
employer
choice
either
integrating
ongoing
benefit
plan
existing
plan
establishing
separate
plan
process
pay
benefits
plan
required
state
benefit
plan
administer
case
instance
fort
halifax
found
need
respond
passage
maine
statute
setting
administrative
scheme
meet
contingent
statutory
obligation
find
necessary
set
ongoing
scheme
deal
obligations
might
face
event
day
might
go
bankrupt
company
makes
contention
statutory
duty
way
hindered
ability
operate
retirement
plan
uniform
fashion
plan
pays
retirement
death
permanent
total
disability
benefits
ongoing
basis
app
obligation
imposed
maine
statute
thus
differs
radically
impact
requirement
employer
pay
ongoing
benefits
continuous
basis
maine
statute
therefore
creates
impediment
employer
adoption
uniform
benefit
administration
scheme
neither
possibility
payment
future
act
making
payment
way
creates
potential
type
conflicting
regulation
benefit
plans
erisa
intended
prevent
result
maine
law
serve
purpose
erisa
provision
enacted
third
answer
appellant
argument
maine
statute
fails
implicate
concerns
erisa
provision
fails
implicate
regulatory
concerns
erisa
congressional
declaration
policy
codified
erisa
enacted
congress
found
desirable
disclosure
made
safeguards
provided
respect
establishment
operation
administration
employee
benefit
plans
representative
dent
house
sponsor
legislation
represented
erisa
fiduciary
standards
prevent
abuses
special
responsibilities
borne
dealing
plans
cong
rec
senator
williams
senate
sponsor
stated
standards
safeguard
employees
abuses
imprudent
investing
misappropriation
plan
funds
focus
statute
thus
administrative
integrity
benefit
plans
presumes
type
administrative
activity
taking
place
see
electing
deliberately
preclude
state
authority
plans
congress
acted
insure
uniformity
regulation
respect
activities
emphasis
added
cong
rec
remarks
dent
disclosure
reporting
requirements
enable
participants
federal
government
monitor
plans
operations
emphasis
added
remarks
javits
disclosure
meant
provide
employees
information
covering
detail
fiscal
operations
plan
emphasis
added
foregoing
makes
clear
erisa
concerned
regulating
benefit
plans
maine
statute
establish
one
plans
involve
administrative
activity
potentially
subject
employer
abuse
obligation
imposed
maine
generates
activity
occasion
determine
whether
plan
operated
interest
beneficiaries
nothing
operated
financial
transactions
take
place
listed
annual
report
information
regarding
terms
severance
pay
obligation
needed
statute
makes
terms
clear
make
sense
clear
way
exclusive
federal
regulation
nothing
regulate
circumstances
way
serve
overall
purpose
erisa
appellant
contends
failure
maine
law
create
opportunity
employers
circumvent
erisa
regulatory
requirements
persuading
state
require
type
benefit
plan
employer
otherwise
establish
may
rationale
offered
state
judicial
rationale
rely
today
maine
judicial
rested
decision
premise
erisa
state
regulation
benefit
plans
established
employer
benefit
plans
agree
approach
afford
employers
readily
available
means
evading
erisa
regulatory
scope
thereby
depriving
employees
protections
statute
addition
permit
circumvent
erisa
provision
allowing
require
directly
forbidden
regulate
contrast
analysis
purpose
erisa
makes
clear
mere
fact
plan
required
state
insufficient
fend
requirements
imposed
state
establishment
benefit
plan
pose
formidable
barrier
development
uniform
set
administrative
practices
standard
oil
california
agsalud
illustrates
employer
put
choice
operating
separate
ongoing
benefit
plans
single
plan
subject
different
regulatory
requirements
face
prospect
numerous
impose
distinct
requirements
result
squarely
inconsistent
goal
erisa
appellant
arguments
thus
well
taken
insofar
addressed
reasoning
demonstrated
supra
however
force
respect
state
statute
establish
plan
statute
generates
program
activity
normally
subject
erisa
regulation
enforcement
maine
statute
presents
risk
either
employer
evade
state
dislodge
otherwise
applicable
federal
regulatory
requirements
prospect
employer
face
difficulty
operating
unified
administrative
scheme
paying
benefits
rationale
rely
thus
create
dangers
appellant
contends
result
upholding
maine
law
appellant
also
argues
contention
severance
obligation
maine
statute
erisa
plan
supported
holland
burlington
industries
summarily
aff
gilbert
burlington
industries
summarily
aff
disagree
cases
hold
plan
pays
severance
benefits
general
assets
erisa
plan
holding
completely
consistent
analysis
question
burlington
cases
case
whether
employer
plan
plan
issue
whether
type
benefits
paid
plan
among
covered
erisa
precise
question
simply
whether
severance
benefits
paid
plan
general
assets
rather
trust
fund
regarded
employee
welfare
benefits
courts
conclusion
regarded
took
account
erisa
central
focus
administrative
integrity
employer
administrative
scheme
paying
benefits
able
evade
requirements
statute
merely
paying
benefits
general
assets
severance
benefit
obligations
nature
necessitate
ongoing
administrative
scheme
others
obligation
imposed
case
simply
involve
state
law
relate
employee
benefit
plan
burlington
cases
therefore
support
appellant
argument
erisa
analysis
must
guided
respect
separate
spheres
governmental
authority
preserved
federalist
system
alessi
argument
erisa
state
laws
relating
certain
employee
benefits
rather
employee
benefit
plans
refuted
express
language
statute
purposes
provision
regulatory
focus
erisa
whole
state
creates
prospect
conflict
federal
statute
warrant
disabling
attempting
address
uniquely
local
social
economic
problems
since
maine
severance
payment
statute
raises
danger
conflict
hold
statute
erisa
iii
appellant
also
contends
maine
statute
nlra
arguing
company
relies
strand
nlra
analysis
prohibits
imposing
additional
restrictions
economic
weapons
golden
state
transit
city
los
angeles
restriction
state
activity
area
rests
theory
necessary
congress
intent
conduct
involved
unregulated
left
controlled
free
play
economic
forces
machinists
wisconsin
employment
relations
quoting
nlrb
appellant
concedes
unlike
cases
state
laws
struck
doctrine
maine
directly
regulated
economic
activity
either
parties
see
machinists
supra
state
enjoined
union
members
continuing
refuse
work
overtime
garner
teamsters
state
enjoined
union
picketing
state
sought
directly
force
party
forgo
use
one
economic
weapons
see
golden
state
transit
supra
city
council
conditioned
taxicab
franchise
renewal
settlement
strike
nonetheless
appellant
maintains
maine
law
intrudes
bargaining
activities
parties
prospect
statutory
obligation
undercuts
employer
ability
withstand
union
demand
severance
pay
argument
state
establishment
minimum
substantive
labor
standards
undercuts
collective
bargaining
considered
rejected
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
case
involved
state
law
requiring
minimum
mental
health
benefits
provided
certain
health
insurance
policies
appellants
presented
argument
appellant
makes
case
ecause
congress
intended
leave
choice
terms
agreements
free
play
economic
forces
laws
nlra
held
however
nlra
concerned
ensuring
equitable
bargaining
process
substantive
terms
may
emerge
bargaining
evil
congress
addressing
thus
entirely
unrelated
local
federal
regulation
establishing
minimum
terms
employment
regulation
provides
protections
individual
union
nonunion
workers
alike
thus
neither
encourage
discourage
processes
subject
nlra
furthermore
lightly
inferred
area
since
establishment
labor
standards
falls
within
traditional
police
power
state
result
held
state
law
establishes
minimal
employment
standard
inconsistent
general
legislative
goals
nlra
conflicts
none
purposes
act
true
maine
statute
gives
employees
something
otherwise
might
bargain
true
however
regard
state
law
substantively
regulates
employment
conditions
employers
employees
come
bargaining
table
rights
state
law
form
backdrop
negotiations
ibid
quoting
taggart
weinacker
concurring
opinion
absent
agreement
instance
state
common
law
generally
permits
employer
run
workplace
wishes
employer
enjoys
authority
without
bargain
parties
may
enter
negotiations
designed
alter
state
affairs
impasse
reached
employer
may
rely
state
law
justify
authority
make
employment
decisions
state
law
defines
rights
duties
employees
similarly
maine
provides
employer
employees
may
negotiate
intention
establishing
severance
pay
terms
impasse
reached
however
state
law
determines
right
employees
certain
level
severance
pay
duty
employer
provide
thus
mere
fact
state
statute
pertains
matters
parties
free
bargain
support
claim
nothing
nlra
expressly
forecloses
state
regulatory
power
respect
issues
may
subject
collective
bargaining
malone
white
motor
appellant
maintains
case
distinguishable
metropolitan
life
points
unlike
metropolitan
life
statutory
obligation
issue
optional
since
applies
absence
agreement
employer
employees
therefore
company
argues
maine
law
regarded
establishing
genuine
minimum
labor
standard
fact
parties
free
devise
severance
pay
arrangements
however
strengthens
case
statute
works
intrusion
collective
bargaining
maine
sought
balance
desirability
particular
substantive
labor
standard
right
regarding
terms
conditions
employment
statute
permits
collective
bargaining
subject
escapes
nlra
see
metropolitan
life
surely
one
permits
bargaining
therefore
find
maine
severance
payment
law
valid
unexceptional
exercise
state
police
power
metropolitan
life
since
congress
developed
framework
collective
bargaining
nlra
within
larger
body
state
law
promoting
public
health
safety
maine
statute
nlra
iv
hold
maine
severance
pay
statute
erisa
since
relate
employee
benefit
plan
statute
hold
law
nlra
since
establishment
minimum
labor
standard
impermissibly
intrude
upon
process
judgment
maine
judicial
therefore
affirmed
footnotes
severance
pay
employer
relocates
terminates
covered
establishment
shall
liable
employees
severance
pay
rate
one
week
pay
year
employment
employee
establishment
severance
pay
eligible
employees
shall
addition
final
wage
payment
employee
shall
paid
within
one
regular
pay
period
employee
last
full
day
work
notwithstanding
provisions
law
mitigation
severance
pay
liability
shall
liability
severance
pay
eligible
employee
relocation
termination
covered
establishment
necessitated
physical
calamity
employee
covered
express
contract
providing
severance
pay
employee
accepts
employment
new
location
employee
employed
employer
less
years
section
maine
statute
provides
relevant
part
suits
director
director
authorized
supervise
payment
unpaid
severance
pay
owing
employee
section
director
may
bring
action
competent
jurisdiction
recover
amount
unpaid
severance
pay
right
provided
subsection
bring
action
behalf
employee
employee
become
party
plaintiff
action
shall
terminate
upon
filing
complaint
director
action
subsection
unless
action
dismissed
without
prejudice
director
employees
plant
eligible
payments
ranging
total
amount
due
affidavit
xavier
dietrich
exhibit
hold
obligation
created
maine
statute
involve
plan
address
state
alternative
argument
even
law
establish
plan
virtue
exemption
plans
maintained
solely
purpose
complying
applicable
unemployment
compensation
disability
insurance
laws
section
defines
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
plan
pays
inter
alia
benefits
described
latter
section
includes
inter
alia
money
paid
employer
trust
fund
pay
severance
benefits
section
construed
include
severance
benefits
paid
general
assets
well
trust
fund
see
holland
burlington
industries
summarily
aff
gilbert
burlington
industries
summarily
aff
scott
gulf
oil
cfr
see
also
discussion
infra
see
martori
distributors
difficult
see
making
lump
sum
payments
constitute
establishment
plan
amended
grounds
cert
denied
cf
donovan
dillingham
decision
extend
benefits
establishment
plan
program
congress
amended
erisa
exempt
certain
provisions
hawaii
act
place
enactment
erisa
haw
rev
stat
supp
amendment
exempt
portions
law
dealing
reporting
disclosure
fiduciary
requirements
dissent
draws
support
position
rejection
agsalud
argument
state
laws
relating
plan
administration
opposed
plan
benefits
erisa
post
position
however
acknowledges
said
discussion
supra
state
laws
requiring
payment
benefits
also
relate
employee
benefit
plan
attempt
dictate
benefits
shall
paid
plan
hold
otherwise
create
prospect
plan
administration
subject
differing
requirements
regarding
benefit
eligibility
benefit
levels
precisely
type
conflict
erisa
provision
intended
prevent
appellant
notes
death
benefits
sometimes
involve
payment
beneficiaries
erisa
nonetheless
defines
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
include
program
pays
benefits
thus
contends
fact
maine
statute
requires
single
payment
mean
statute
establish
plan
argument
however
misunderstands
makes
plan
plan
death
benefits
may
represent
payment
perspective
beneficiaries
employer
clearly
foresees
need
make
regular
payments
survivors
ongoing
basis
ongoing
predictable
nature
obligation
therefore
creates
need
administrative
scheme
process
claims
pay
benefits
whether
benefits
received
beneficiaries
lump
sum
periodic
basis
borne
fact
death
benefits
included
appellant
retirement
plan
instructions
eligibility
determined
benefit
levels
calculated
disbursements
made
app
contrast
appellant
statutory
obligation
prompt
establishment
payment
program
since
ongoing
benefits
paid
employer
made
commitment
pay
severance
benefits
employees
person
left
employment
commitment
created
need
administrative
scheme
pay
benefits
ongoing
basis
company
distributed
policy
manual
employees
handbook
provided
details
matters
eligibility
benefit
levels
payment
schedules
fact
employer
complied
requirements
erisa
operating
scheme
therefore
dissent
contends
post
mean
program
paying
benefits
existence
question
arose
provides
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
includes
plan
provides
benefits
described
latter
section
lists
inter
alia
money
paid
employer
trust
fund
severance
benefits
thus
state
required
benefit
whose
regularity
payment
necessarily
required
ongoing
benefit
program
evade
simple
expedient
somehow
formally
characterizing
obligation
payment
triggered
occurrence
certain
contingency
therefore
case
dissent
argues
post
state
dictate
payment
numerous
employee
benefits
simply
characterizing
administrative
ibid
decade
total
plants
closed
maine
resulting
direct
loss
jobs
leighton
plant
closings
maine
law
reality
key
issues
plant
closing
legislation
aboud
taking
account
multiplier
effects
job
losses
local
communities
estimated
total
number
jobs
lost
maine
period
losses
concentrated
poorer
counties
state
lower
wage
industries
resulting
significant
burden
local
public
private
social
service
agencies
national
labor
relations
act
contains
express
provision
appellant
also
contends
unlike
statute
metropolitan
life
maine
law
fall
equally
upon
union
nonunion
employees
nonunion
employers
argues
free
unilaterally
escape
statutory
obligation
establishing
severance
payment
levels
unionized
employers
must
engage
collective
bargaining
order
achieve
result
difference
ease
establishing
alternative
severance
payment
obligations
however
flows
statute
basic
fact
nonunion
employer
freer
set
employment
terms
unionized
employer
also
find
support
argument
rule
established
san
diego
building
trades
council
garmon
since
maine
statute
purport
regulate
conduct
subject
regulation
national
labor
relations
board
see
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
justice
white
chief
justice
justice
justice
scalia
join
dissenting
rejects
appellant
challenge
maine
severance
pay
statute
reasoning
statute
create
plan
erisa
require
administrative
scheme
administer
payment
severance
benefits
making
turn
existence
administrative
scheme
creates
loophole
erisa
statute
undermine
congress
decision
make
plans
matter
exclusive
federal
regulation
rule
requiring
established
administrative
scheme
prerequisite
erisa
allow
effectively
dictate
wide
array
employee
benefits
must
provided
employers
simply
characterizing
administrative
also
chosen
ignore
completely
precedent
exists
constitutes
plan
erisa
dissent
incredible
believe
congress
intended
broad
preemption
provision
contained
erisa
depend
upon
extent
employer
exercised
administrative
foresight
preparing
eventual
payment
employee
benefits
erisa
state
laws
insofar
may
hereafter
relate
employee
benefit
plan
congress
defined
employee
welfare
benefit
plan
plan
fund
program
heretofore
hereafter
established
maintained
employer
employee
organization
provides
certain
benefits
including
severance
pay
see
gilbert
burlington
industries
summarily
aff
state
law
requires
employers
pay
employees
specific
benefits
clearly
relate
benefit
plans
contemplated
erisa
provision
shaw
delta
air
lines
thought
end
inquiry
maine
statute
clearly
creates
employee
benefit
plan
created
erisa
plan
statute
plainly
relates
plan
maine
judicial
effect
acknowledged
much
held
maine
statute
erisa
created
state
legislature
instead
private
employer
apparently
recognizing
flaw
inherent
reasoning
majority
nevertheless
struggles
achieve
desired
result
asserting
statute
create
plan
require
employer
establish
administrative
scheme
accept
conclusion
first
establishes
requirement
plan
meet
specific
formalities
policy
manual
employee
handbook
effectuate
cf
ante
reading
requirement
majority
ignores
obvious
maine
employer
called
upon
discharge
legislatively
mandated
duty
severance
pay
statute
funds
pays
benefits
materialize
thin
air
maine
legislature
presumed
entitled
employers
comply
dictates
statute
requirements
employer
liability
contingent
upon
event
may
never
happen
make
plan
legislature
imposed
upon
employers
less
plan
may
imprudent
employers
either
unaware
severance
pay
statute
order
business
affairs
statute
obligations
exist
upon
behavior
class
employers
majority
seemingly
relies
concluding
severance
pay
statute
embody
administrative
scheme
way
supports
remarkable
conclusion
statutory
obligations
constitute
plan
payment
severance
benefits
second
concluding
maine
statute
establish
plan
contemplated
erisa
overrules
sub
silentio
recent
decisions
gilbert
burlington
industries
supra
involved
employer
policy
pay
severance
benefits
employees
involuntarily
terminated
employer
separate
fund
make
severance
pay
payments
particular
note
virtually
administrative
scheme
effectuate
program
granting
denial
severance
pay
automatic
upon
termination
plaintiffs
employees
allege
burlington
never
sought
comply
erisa
respecting
severance
pay
policy
claim
never
published
filed
annual
report
financial
statement
plan
description
statement
plan
modifications
designate
fiduciary
plan
inform
employees
rights
erisa
plan
established
claims
procedure
apart
company
open
door
grievance
policy
established
appeals
procedure
gilbert
employees
numerous
amici
claimed
promise
agreement
pay
severance
benefits
without
constitute
welfare
benefit
plan
within
meaning
erisa
second
circuit
rejected
contention
summarily
affirmed
see
also
holland
burlington
industries
summarily
aff
characterizes
standard
oil
california
agsalud
summarily
aff
holding
erisa
hawaii
health
care
statute
impaired
employers
ability
structur
administrative
practices
according
set
uniform
guidelines
ante
case
involved
administrative
uniformity
indeed
agsalud
ninth
circuit
expressly
rejected
argument
erisa
concerned
administration
benefit
plans
state
statutes
require
employers
provide
particular
employee
benefits
appellants
district
argued
since
erisa
concerned
primarily
administration
benefit
plans
provisions
intended
prevent
operation
laws
like
hawaii
act
pertaining
principally
benefits
rather
administration
however
nothing
statute
support
distinction
state
laws
relating
benefits
opposed
administration
ninth
circuit
held
hawaii
act
directly
expressly
regulates
employers
type
benefits
provide
employees
must
relate
employee
benefit
plans
within
meaning
erisa
broad
provision
representatives
state
hawaii
appealed
claiming
inter
alia
state
police
power
permits
require
employers
provide
certain
employee
benefits
hawaii
statute
way
conflicts
substantive
provision
erisa
since
statute
requires
benefits
juris
statement
disagreed
summarily
affirmed
rationale
provides
means
circumventing
congressional
intent
clearly
expressed
state
laws
relate
employee
benefit
plans
reason
dissent