Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): plans that entail ongoing or periodic payment schemes. See Fort Halifax, 482 U.S. at 12, 107 S.Ct. 2211; Belanger, 71 F.3d at 455-56; Simas, 6 F.3d at 853. While it is true, as Nadworny argues, that Shaw’s and Albertson’s obligations under the severance agreement constitute a one-time, lump sum payment of benefits, as in other cases where the courts have determined that ERISA does not preempt a state law, Pl.’s Mem. at 6-7, several of the cases Nadworny cites in support of his argument are distinguishable from his own case. The holdings in O’Connor, Rodowicz, and Belanger for instance, were decided under different facts; in those cases, the employers offered early retirement packages indiscriminately to their employees as a means of encouraging attrition. O’Connor, 251 F.3d at 268-69 (<HOLDING>); Rodowicz, 192 F.3d at 166 (upholding district 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed (B) holding em ployers retirement incentive package that mechanically calculated and offered to a broad class of employees indiscriminately did not implicate erisa (C) holding that serial offer of retirement plans did not implicate erisa (D) holding onetime retirement incentive package was purely automatic and nondiscretionary and thus not under the rubric of erisa (E) holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa
Output (English): holding that serial offer of retirement plans did not implicate erisa