Corp., 26 F.3d 1368, 1376 (6th Cir.1994). As the district court noted, the sole question in this case is whether plaintiffs’ transfer of employment from ANSI to Cargill was a “release” as defined by the ANSI severance plan. In order to qualify as a “release” in this context, plaintiffs must have been permanently separated due to “lack of work,” an “economic reduction in the workforce,” or some other reason covered by the plan’s use of the term “etc.” Courts should interpret ERISA plan provisions “according to their plain meaning, in an ordinary and popular sense.” Perez v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 150 F.3d 550, 556 (6th Cir.1998). In applying this “plain meaning analysis,” the court “must give effect to the unambiguous terms of an Rockwell Int’l Corp., 24 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Bradwell v. GAF Corp., 954 F.2d 798, 800 (2d
holding that a change in employer from one federal contractor to another caused employees no lack of work holding that employees of successor corporation were not laid off for lack of work after transfer of ownership holding that employees who continued at a comparable job with a successor company had not been permanently terminated or laid off by the company due to lack of work holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation holding that a denial of transfer was not an adverse employment action where the plaintiff asserted only that the transfer would allow him to work closer to home