" Kulinski, 21 F.3d at 257; see also Plante v. Foster Klima & Co., LLC, No. 03-3553, 2004 WL 2222318, at *5 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2004) (finding no ERISA plan where an employer's actions involved no discretion and no separate administrative scheme was required to support the employer's fulfillment of their obligations). It is these "types of discretionary decisions, such as evaluating eligibility criteria or determining benefit levels, that are indications of a true ERISA plan." Wright Elec., Inc. v. Minn. State Bd. of Elec., No. 00-1457, 2002 WL 511453, at *5 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2002). In this case, nothing suggests that Merrill Lynch maintained a separate administrative scheme or exercised discretion over eligibility or benefits levels for the Unum Policy. Merrill Lynch did not invite Unum to offer a policy to employees or even conduct a presentation about the Unum Policy. Unum requested the opportunity to make a presentation about the Policy so that Merrill Lynch employees could inform clients about the Policy, and Merrill Lynch acquiesced. Merrill Lynch does not appear to have played any role in the Policy application process, as the employees submitted their applications directly to Unum. Nor did Merrill Lynch have any control over the employees' benefit levels.