United States Sixth Circuit

Mere labeling by a plan sponsor or administrator is not determinative on whether a plan is governed by ERISA. In a former employee's case brought against DaimlerChrysler raising claims of age and sex discrimination, wrongful discharge, as well as additional state law and ERISA claims, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed as: 1) as a "Disability Absence Plan" plainly fell under the definition of a payroll practice, it was not covered by ERISA, and the district court properly denied the ERISA claim for disability-absence benefits; 2) the district court had an adequate basis for subject matter jurisdiction despite such finding; and 3) plaintiff failed to show any error as to her state law claims.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/18/2007
• Published 09/18/2007

Judges

• Before:  DAUGHTREY and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges;  REEVES, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Michael D. Portnoy, Rossford, Ohio, for Appellant.   Thomas J. Gibney, Eastman & Smith, Toledo, Ohio, James R. Knepp, II, Robison, Curphey & O'Connell, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Michael D. Portnoy, Rossford, Ohio, for Appellant.  Thomas J. Gibney, Heidi N. Eischen, Eastman & Smith, Toledo, Ohio, James R. Knepp, II, Robison, Curphey & O'Connell, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellees.