judgments would call upon the integrity of an employer’s administration, the fiduciary duty imposed by ERISA is vital.”); Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 21 F.3d 254, 257 (8th Cir.1994) (“[A]n employer’s need to create an administrative system may arise where the employer, to determine the employees’ eligibility for and level of benefits, must analyze each employee’s particular circumstances in light of the appropriate criteria.”). The second factor, whether payment of benefits is triggered by a single, unique event or on a recurring basis, also favors the finding of an ERISA plan. Payment of severance benefits under the SAP is not premised upon a single event, such as a plant closing, as was at issue in Fort Halifax. See Fort Halifax, 482 U.S. at 12, 107 S.Ct. at 2218 (<HOLDING>); see also, Delaye v. Agripac, Inc., 39 F.3d
holding the payment of benefits at the occurrence of a single event an indicium of lack of an administrative scheme holding that the discovery of evidence of crimes in the course of an otherwise proper administrative inspection does not render that search illegal or the administrative scheme suspect holding the lumpsum payment of a severance benefit to be evidence of lack of an administrative scheme holding that the liability creating event constitutes an occurrence holding a judgment that reserved the issue of child support indefinitely and not pending the occurrence of a specific event to be final