Rodowicz v. MA Mutual Life Insurance, s. 98-1654
| Decision Date | 03 November 1999 |
| Docket Number | 98-1690,Nos. 98-1654,s. 98-1654 |
| Parties | (1st Cir. 1999) STANLEY A. RODOWICZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. STANLEY A. RODOWICZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants. Entered |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Before Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Boudin, Circuit Judge.1
Prior Report: 192 F.3d 162
Defendant-appellees Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and Massachusetts Mutual Voluntary Termination Program's (collectively, "MassMutual") petition for panel rehearing is denied.
There is no merit in their argument that our decision rests upon a mistaken finding of fact as to the timing of MassMutual's consideration of a reduction in force. We stated on page 6 that That statement merely paraphrases, accurately, the district court's own published and supported assertion that Alfano's "analysis [of costs and benefits] occurred in the months between March and September 1992." See Rodowicz v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 3 F. Supp. 2d 1481 at 1485 (D. Mass. 1998). For reasons set forth in our opinion, we are also satisfied that factual issues, precluding summary judgment, exist on the present record as to whether three of the plaintiffs could rely on certain statements alleged to have been made by MassMutual personnel. We have been careful to point out that nothing in our current disposition is intended as a final word on these matters.
MassMutual makes a more convincing point regarding the standard by which this court reviews the district court's determination that the termination program was not an ERISA "plan." After giving this matter further thought, the panel believes that the standard of review in the circumstances is de novo rather than clear error. Accordingly, we have modified our opinion in the manner set out in the attached errata sheet.
While we are persuaded that the standard of review in the present circumstances is de novo, the alteration in review standard does not alter the outcome of the case. Reviewing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. AstraZeneca AB
...Gas Co. , 251 F.3d 262, 266–67 (1st Cir.2001) (quoting Rodowicz v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 192 F.3d 162, 170, amended by 195 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.1999) ).Those obligations are the touchstone of the determination: if they require an ongoing administrative scheme that is subject to mismanagemen......
-
Rodowicz v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...the viable claims down to these three. Rodowicz v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. (Rodowicz I), 192 F.3d 162, modified, reh'g denied, 195 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.1999).1 This court's prior opinion reversed the entry of summary judgment against these three employees and held their Massachusetts state law......
-
Fici v. Lucent Technologies Inc.
...to benefit plans at issue in Belanger v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 71 F.3d 451 (1st Cir.1995) modified on other grounds, Rodowicz v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 195 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.1999), Rodowicz v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 192 F.3d 162 (1st Cir.1999), and O'Connor v. Comm. Gas Co., 251 F.3d 262 (......
-
Arivella v. Alcatel–lucent
...extent of an employer's benefit obligations.” Rodowicz v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 192 F.3d 162, 170, modified on other grounds, 195 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.1999). “Where subjective judgments would call upon the integrity of an employer's administration, the fiduciary duty imposed by ERISA is vit......