Competing ERISA Claims. Section 502(a) of the ERISA statute authorizes the filing of a civil action by “a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary”11 of an ERISA plan who seeks “appropriate equitable relief” in order to enforce “the terms of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B)(ii). The statute’s definitional section specifies that a “plan” is “an employee welfare benefit plan or an employee pension plan or a plan which is both an employee welfare benefit plan and an employee pension benefit plan.” Id. § 1002(3). As the Supreme Court observed in Fort Halifax Packing Co. x. Xxxxx, 482 U.S. 1, 8 (1987), these portions of the statute are tautological. Likewise, the Seventh Circuit has instructed that, because “[XXXXX]’s definitions of ‘plan,’ ‘employee welfare benefit plan[,]’ and ‘employee 11For purposes of the instant lawsuit, we note that Xx. Xxxxx may be classified as a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary under XXXXX. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(7), (8), (14)(A). The Company is considered a “fiduciary.” Id. § 1002 (14)(A) (defining “fiduciary” as “ including, but not limited to, any administrator, officer, trustee, or custodian, counsel, or employee of such employee benefit plan”). pension benefit plan’ all contain the word ‘plan’ within their definitions,” courts must look beyond the statutory language to ascertain what constitutes an ERISA plan. Xxxxxxx v. CBI Ill. Inc., 106 F.3d 1368, 1374 (7th Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Int’l Union of Operating Eng’xx x. Xxxxxx, 161 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 1998). Binding case law precedent indicates that an ERISA plan typically involves a continuing administrative scheme, Fort Halifax Packing Co., 482 U.S. at 12, and reasonably ascertainable terms, Xxxx x. Xxxxx, Xxxxxxxx & Xxxx, P.C., 33 F.3d 809, 812 (7th Cir. 1994). The latter of these two factors requires a determination of “whether[,] from the surrounding circumstances[,] a reasonable person could ascertain the intended benefits, beneficiaries, source of financing, and procedures for receiving benefits.” Xxxx, 33 F.3d at 812 (citing Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxxxx, 688 F.2d 1367, 1373 (11th Cir. 1982)). Ultimately, classifying an agreement (or provisions contained therein) as a qualified ERISA plan involves a fact-intensive analysis.12
