Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne addresses ERISA coverage by focusing on whether the benefit package implicates what?

Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne addresses ERISA coverage by focusing on whether the benefit package implicates what?

• A. A funded pension arrangement
• B. A nonqualified plan
• C. An ongoing administrative scheme
• D. A foreign employer plan

Answer: (C)

ERISA coverage depends on whether the benefit package is part of an ongoing employee welfare benefit plan with continuous administration. In Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, the Supreme Court looked at severance pay to see if it was governed by ERISA. The decisive factor was whether there was an ongoing administrative scheme managing the benefits. Because the severance payment in that case was a one-time arrangement without a continuing program and regular administration, it did not fall under ERISA as a welfare benefit plan. So the correct focus is the presence of an ongoing administrative framework. The other ideas describe forms the benefits could take, but they don’t capture the Court’s test in this scenario: does the arrangement involve an ongoing program overseen in a regular, administative way?

ERISA coverage depends on whether the benefit package is part of an ongoing employee welfare benefit plan with continuous administration. In Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, the Supreme Court looked at severance pay to see if it was governed by ERISA. The decisive factor was whether there was an ongoing administrative scheme managing the benefits. Because the severance payment in that case was a one-time arrangement without a continuing program and regular administration, it did not fall under ERISA as a welfare benefit plan.

So the correct focus is the presence of an ongoing administrative framework. The other ideas describe forms the benefits could take, but they don’t capture the Court’s test in this scenario: does the arrangement involve an ongoing program overseen in a regular, administative way?