holding that a plan’s “[provision of a year of continued benefits ... did not require the creation of a new administrative scheme, and did not materially alter an existing administrative scheme ...”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a plan’s “[provision of a year of continued benefits ... did not require the creation of a new administrative scheme, and did not materially alter an existing administrative scheme ...”
- noting that cases in which courts have allowed employees to bring actions against employers solely under state law without federal law preemption of their state law claims all involved state law claims that arose when the aggrieved employees were not subject to collectively bargained labor agreements
- finding that a single disbursement to each employee did not constitute an ERISA “plan” as it did not require an ongoing administrative scheme
- holding that union members were required to exhaust grievance and arbitration procedures contained in CBA prior to filing suit under LMRA
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 (1992)
969 F.2d 1530 (3d Cir.1992), had been overruled by District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 580, 121 L.Ed.2d 513 (1992)), it is bound to recognize when a Third Circuit precedent has been squarely overruled by an opinion of the Supreme Court.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge; BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, and GARTH * , Circuit Judges.
*1544 The petition for rehearing filed by appellants in No. 91-1791 having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.