Atkins v. CB&I, 991 F.3d 667

Plaintiffs are five former CB&I laborers who left a Louisiana construction project before their roles were complete and thus did not receive the Project Completion Incentive.
CB&I’s Project Completion Incentive promised a one-time payment equal to 5% of an employee’s total earnings on the project if the employee remained until their role was complete, was laid off in a reduction-in-force, or was transferred when the role was complete.
Plaintiffs sued in Louisiana state court under the Louisiana Wage Payment Act, alleging the ineligibility rule amounted to an unlawful wage forfeiture; they conceded they were ineligible under the plan’s terms.
CB&I removed to federal court, arguing the Incentive Plan is governed by ERISA, which would preempt the state-law claim; the district court agreed and entered judgment for CB&I.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether ERISA applies and concluded the Incentive Plan is not an ERISA plan because it involves a simple, single payment, minimal discretion, and no ongoing administrative scheme.
The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for return to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Project Completion Incentive is an ERISA employee benefit plan	Plan is not governed by ERISA because it is a one-time, simple payment and requires no ongoing administrative scheme	ERISA governs because plan requires ongoing discretion/administration to determine qualifying terminations	Not an ERISA plan: single simple payment, limited discretion, no dedicated administrative apparatus
Jurisdiction / preemption effect if ERISA applies	State-law wage claim should proceed in state court	ERISA preempts state law and federal court has jurisdiction	Because the plan is not an ERISA plan, ERISA does not preempt and case is remanded to state court

Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (1987) (ERISA does not cover one-time lump-sum severance payments that require no ongoing administrative scheme)
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) (ERISA preemption of state-law claims when ERISA governs)
Cantrell v. Briggs & Veselka Co., 728 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) (one-time calculation and limited discretion may weigh against ERISA coverage)
Gomez v. Ericsson, Inc., 828 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2016) (ERISA may cover severance plans that require subjective, ongoing administrative decisions)
Crowell v. Shell Oil Co., 541 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2008) (continuous payouts and varying calculations indicate ERISA coverage)
Peace v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2006) (one-time severance payments are not ERISA plans)
Tinoco v. Marine Chartering Co., 311 F.3d 617 (5th Cir. 2002) (frequency of triggering events relevant to ERISA analysis)
Clayton v. ConocoPhillips Co., 722 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2013) (discretion to determine "good reason" can support ERISA coverage)
House v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 499 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2007) (standard of review: ERISA applicability is a legal question reviewed de novo)