that an eligible beneficiary “will receive his/her severance payment in a lump sum.” Compl. Ex. A (“Severance Pay Plan”) § IV. Lump sum payments weigh against finding preemption in part because the amounts to be paid usually are determined by a straightforward calculation based upon the employees’ salaries and years of service with the organization. See, e.g., Fort Halifax, 482 U.S. at 12, 107 S.Ct. 2211; Simas, 6 F.3d at 851. The force of this factor stems in large part from the fact that benefit plans that require only single, lump sum payments tend to demand less of the administrator in terms of rendering judgments of eligibility and managing the program and fund than ourt ruling that ERISA did not preempt where incentive retirement package was at issue); Belanger, 71 F.3d at 452 (<HOLDING>); see also White v. Bell Atlantic Yellow Pages,
holding em ployers retirement incentive package that mechanically calculated and offered to a broad class of employees indiscriminately did not implicate erisa holding that serial offer of retirement plans did not implicate erisa holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language