Opinion ID: 3013244
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court Here

Text: Using a Murphy analysis, the district court in this case first determined that the AIG stock option incentive plan was not an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA because its purpose was to operate as an incentive and bonus program, and not as a means to defer compensation or provide retirement benefits. Oatway v. American Int’l Group, Inc., 2002 WL 187512 -4 (D. Del. Feb. 05, 2002). In short, the AIG plan was not designed specifically to provide employees with medical, unemployment, disability, death, vacation, or other specified benefits or to provide income following retirement in order to come within the purview of ERISA. Id. We agree. See Murphy, 611 F.2d at 8 574; Hagel v. United Land Co., 759 F. Supp. 1199 (E.D. Va. 1991); Long v. Excel Telecoms. Corp., 2000 WL 1562808 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2000); Hahn v. National Westminster Bank, N.A., 99 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); Goodrich v. CML Fiberoptics, 990 F. Supp. 48 (D. Mass. 1998); Fludgate v. Management Technologies, 885 F. Supp. 645 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). The district court went on, also using a Murphy analysis, to find that the AIG plan was also not an employee pension benefit plan under ERISA because it was not created for the purpose of providing retirement income, but rather was an incentive plan designed to provide a financial incentive for employees to remain with AIG and improve their performance there. Oatway, 2002 WL 187512 at . We agree. See Murphy, 611 F.2d at 574. Oatway’s post- retirement payments were only incidental to the goal of providing current compensation. See Hahn, 99 F. Supp. 2d at 279; Lafian v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 856 F. Supp. 339 (E.D. Mich. 1994); Raskin v. Cynet, Inc. 131 F. Supp. 2d 906 (S.D. Tex. 2001); Chambless v. Excel Communications, Inc., 2002 WL 31990311 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2002); Kaelin v. Tenneco, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 478 (N.D.