context: The class of beneficiaries rarely seems to be a contested issue when determining whether an informal ERISA plan exists.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 876 F.2d 546, 547
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that the class of beneficiaries was terminated non-union salaried employees
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Deibler, 973 F.2d at 210 (finding a regular plan for retiring union officers); Brown v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp., 876 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1989) (noting that the class of beneficiaries was terminated non-union salaried employees); see also Shaver, 670 F.3d at 479 (observing that if plan existed, it would include “legacy employees”); Williams v. WCI Steel Co., 170 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 1999) (ruling that although-informal plan did not exist, the class of beneficiaries was clear).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 670 F.3d 479, 479
citation_b.parenthetical: observing that if plan existed, it would include "legacy employees"
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Deibler, 973 F.2d at 210 (finding a regular plan for retiring union officers); Brown v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp., 876 F.2d 546, 547 (6th Cir. 1989) (noting that the class of beneficiaries was terminated non-union salaried employees); see also Shaver, 670 F.3d at 479 (observing that if plan existed, it would include “legacy employees”); Williams v. WCI Steel Co., 170 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 1999) (ruling that although-informal plan did not exist, the class of beneficiaries was clear).