Wagner Logo

Follow us on Twitter View our profile on LinkedIn Like us on Facebook 




The Wagner Law Group

The Wagner Law Group is a nationally recognized practice in the areas of ERISA and employee benefits, estate planning, employment, labor and human resources and investment management.


Established in 1996, The Wagner Law Group is dedicated to the highest standards of integrity, excellence and thought leadership and is considered to be amongst the nation's premier ERISA and employee benefits law firms. The firm has eight offices across the country, providing unparalleled legal advice to its clients, including large, small and nonprofit corporations as well as individuals and government entities worldwide. The Wagner Law Group's 34 attorneys, senior benefits consultant and seven paralegals combine many years of experience in their fields of practice with a variety of backgrounds. Nine of the attorneys are AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and six are Fellows of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, an invitation-only organization of nationally recognized employee benefits lawyers.  Five of the firm's attorneys have been named to the prestigious Super Lawyers list for 2017, which highlights outstanding lawyers based on a rigorous selection process. The Wagner Law Group is certified as a woman-owned and operated business by the Women's Business Enterprise National Council.










Contact Info

The Wagner Law Group


  Integrity | Excellence



Tel: (617) 357-5200 

Fax: (617) 357-5250 

99 Summer Street 

13th Floor

Boston, MA 02110


Washington, D.C.

Tel: (202) 969-2800


Fax: (202) 969-2568

 800 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 810

Washington, D.C. 20006



Tel: (847) 990-9034

Fax: (847) 557-1312

190 South LaSalle Street

Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60603



Palm Beach Gardens 

Tel: (561) 293-3590
Fax: (561) 293-3591
7108 Fairway Drive
Suite 125
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418



Tel: (813) 603-2959

Fax: (813) 603-2961

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Suite 2140
Tampa, FL  33602 


San Francisco

Tel: (415) 625-0002

Fax: (415) 358-8300

300 Montgomery Street

Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104


St. Louis

Tel: (314) 236-0065

Fax: (314) 236-5743
25 W. Moody Avenue
St. Louis, MO  63119


Lincoln, MA

Tel: (617) 532-8080

Fax: (617) 532-8090

 55 Old Bedford Road

Suite 303

Lincoln, MA  01773








May 7, 2018


ERISA Law Alert


ERISA and Severance Benefits: 3rd Circuit Decision Should Prompt Employers to be Proactive




A recent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision should remind employers to take the initiative -- in severance plans and agreements -- to affirmatively address whether ERISA will govern plan disputes, as well as how disputes will get resolved.  This is because a well-drafted ERISA plan should expedite the resolution of employee claims in a cost-effective manner that involves a high level of deference to an employer's decisions.

It is not always clear when a severance plan triggers the application of ERISA.  Years ago, the Supreme Court held in its seminal Fort Halifax decision, that an ongoing "administrative scheme" is needed in order for a severance plan to become subject to ERISA.   Plan designs that include built-in elements of employer discretion have generally been considered to have established the administrative scheme contemplated by the Supreme Court in Fort Halifax.   The 3rd Circuit, however, has just cast some uncertainty to that strategy by holding in
Girardot v. Chemours that an ERISA plan does not result from "individualized determinations of the employees' eligibility to participate in the [VSP] - which involved denying VSP applications of those employees that the Company needed to retain for business reasons."   The court concluded that decisions made over a two-month period do not result in an ongoing scheme, explaining:

"While this process unquestionably involved an exercise of discretion and constituted more than a simple or mechanical decision, the selections took place in a period of less than two months. We cannot say that this involves long-term or ongoing administrative processes; eligibility, once determined, was not conditioned on the occurrence of any future event that would require administrative consideration or adjudication. Moreover, we conclude that the selection process did not create a risk of employee abuse or mismanagement of the VSP."

There is truly a two-edged cut to ERISA.  On the one hand, employers generally lose procedurally when severance is provided through a plan, program, or policy that is not documented as an ERISA plan.  In those cases, a court may deem a plan to be covered by ERISA, with employees receiving maximum ERISA rights and employers being unable to balance those rights with the procedural protections that an ERISA plan may specify.  On the other hand, a modest though formal ERISA severance plan enables an employer to benefit -

  • from requiring an exhaustion of the plan's internal claims procedures before litigation moves forward;
  • from imposing moderate time periods, such as 90 days, within which plan participants must assert claims, as well as locking-in a moderate statute of limitations for court proceedings (such as one year);
  • from litigating in federal court before a federal judge knowledgeable about ERISA, rather than in state court before a jury; and 
  • from securing judicial review under the highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard that the Supreme Court endorsed in its seminal Firestone decision.

Please let us know if you have plan design questions, or could use a quick review of your severance arrangements.  For general discussion of this topic, see the article titled "Say Hello to Smart Goodbyes" which was primarily authored by The Wagner Law Group partner Mark Poerio.  It was published several years ago, but cases such as the 3rd Circuit case described above, highlight the continued relevance of its advice.




This Newsletter is protected by copyright. Material appearing herein may be reproduced with appropriate credit.


This Newsletter is provided for information purposes by The Wagner Law Group to clients and others who may be interested in the subject matter, and may not be relied upon as specific legal advice.  This material is not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. Under the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered advertising.