With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that a “for cause” determination in a severance plan is a considerable factor implicating ERISA); Darlin v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 93 F.Supp.2d 599, 601 (E.D.Pa.2000) (finding an ERISA plan where eligibility was restricted to employees who were terminated without cause). Here, the SAP does not define “willful unsatisfactory performance” or “offensive behavior,” leaving those terms to be applied by Defendant on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, an employee will not receive severance under the SAP if she violated ISO policy or rules. As a result, Defendant must consider the type and seriousness of any infraction before it can determine whether severance benefits should be refused. See O’Connor v. Commonwealth Gas Co., 251 F.3d 262, 267 (1st Cir.2001) (“Where s 237-38 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Instead, Defendant’s obligations are

A: holding that the employer did not have a plan under erisa where no administrative scheme was required to pay the annuity benefit
B: holding that although the employer had discretion to make a for cause determination the employment contract between the former presidentchief executive officer and the defendant employer did not constitute an erisa plan because administration of the benefits required only a single discretionary decision
C: holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan
D: holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation
B.