affirming the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim under § 104(b) where he "did not have a colorable claim for benefits under the Plans" because "under no circumstances could [he] be considered a 'participant' under the Plans"
Summary of this case from Juric v. USALCO, LLCNo. 96-1241.
December 31, 1996.
Appeal from the N.D.W.Va.
REVERSED.
affirming the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim under § 104(b) where he "did not have a colorable claim for benefits under the Plans" because "under no circumstances could [he] be considered a 'participant' under the Plans"
Summary of this case from Juric v. USALCO, LLCIn Clark, the Fourth Circuit found that neither the minimum participation requirements of ERISA, nor the tax provisions requiring that leased employees be counted in determining whether the plan met ERISA's non-discrimination requirements, were sufficient authority to mandate that leased employees be included in the company's plan. Clark, 1997 WL 6958 at **4.
Summary of this case from Bauer v. Summit BancorpIn Carrington, the Court stated that "a state employee has no property interest in continued nonexempt status if state law gives the executive discretion to determine which positions are exempt and to change such designations."
Summary of this case from Vincoli v. StateFull title:Cross v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Date published: Dec 31, 1996
Id. Similarly, in Clark v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 105 F.3d 646(Table), No. 95-2845, 1997 WL 6958(4th…
In re AllnuttAllnutt v. Lewis, No. 94-5195-JS (Bankr. D.Md., removed April 29, 1994) (Charles Lewis was an employee of…