# Angst v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · August 17, 1992 · 969 F.2d 1530

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001861

## Case

- **Full name:** Kermit A. ANGST, Robert M. Cesanek, Sr., Rocco J. Corona, Jr., Chris Donatelli, Dale J. Eisenhauer, Frank W. Hanzl, Dennis R. Helfrich, Robert E. Keck, Daniel D. Kostelnick, Randall S. Lawler, Jr., Gary M. Madaus, James L. Marino, Arthur E. Marshall, James M. Mindock, Thomas C. Shappell v. MACK TRUCKS, INC., William C. Craig, Robert E. Kendall, Individually and as Administrators of the Severance Plan of December 18, 1989, the International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 677 Stephen T. Hawk, Robert M. STASKO v. MACK TRUCKS, INC., the International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 677, William C. Craig, Robert E. Kendall, Individually and as Administrators of the Severance Plan of December 18, 1989 David SHEARER v. MACK TRUCKS, INC., William C. Craig, Robert E. Kendall, Individually and as Administrators of the Severance Plan of December 18, 1989, Kermit A. Angst, Robert M. Cesanek, Sr., Rocco J. Corona, Jr., Chris Donatelli, Dale J. Eisenhauer, Frank W. Hanzl, Dennis Helfrich, Robert E. Keck, Daniel D. Kostelnick, Randall S. Lawler, Jr., Gary M. Madaus, James L. Marino, Arthur E. Marshall, James M. Mindock, Thomas C. Shappell, Stephen T. Hawk, Robert M. Stasko and David Shearer, in No. 91-1791, Mack Trucks, Inc., in No. 91-1843
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** August 17, 1992
- **Citations:** 969 F.2d 1530; 1992 WL 166359
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Alito, Becker, Cowen, Garth, Greenberg, Mansmann, Nygaard, Roth, Scirica, Sloviter, Stapleton
- **Cited by:** 80 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 (1992).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001861

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 ba…
- 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
- finding that neither the one-time payment nor the year of continued benefits at issue implicated ERISA

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9001861. Public record. Not legal advice.