and Span of Time During which Employer is Obligated. A “very important” consideration in ERISA preemption disputes is whether, in light of all the facts and circumstances, the employee reasonably could believe that the employer has an ongoing commitment to provide benefits. Id. at 455. A court’s finding that an employer has an obligation to disburse benefits on a long-term or periodic basis weighs in favor of ERISA preemption, while a finding that a benefit plan consists solely of an obligation to make a single, lump sum payment of benefits weighs against preemption. Fort Halifax, 482 U.S. at 12, 107 S.Ct. 2211; Belanger, 71 F.3d at 455. The Shaw’s severance agreement indic o. 01-10157-DPW, 2004 WL 594957, *9, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4720, *26 (D.Mass. Mar.23, 2004) (Woodlock, J.) (<HOLDING>). In those cases, the offer of benefits was
holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed holding that military retirement benefits are current pay and thus significantly different than other retirement benefits holding em ployers retirement incentive package that mechanically calculated and offered to a broad class of employees indiscriminately did not implicate erisa holding onetime retirement incentive package was purely automatic and nondiscretionary and thus not under the rubric of erisa holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa