Red-circling, generally, is a practice in which an employee is reassigned to a less demanding job, but is continued at the prior rate of compensation enjoyed in the previously held position. Id. Plaintiffs focus on certain distinctions between red-circling and grandfathering. Red-circle compensation is generally reserved to situations where an employee has either been transferred or reassigned. In short, a change in assignment occurs, usually involving either a temporary or long-service employee. Grandfathering, in contrast, generally involves employees who are neither transferred or reassigned. While the Federal Regulations and case law do not explicate all possible examples of the red-circling concept, see Christiana, v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 839 F.Supp. 248, 255 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (<HOLDING>), the Court finds that red-circling does not
holding the regulations enumerated examples are nonexclusive and merely illustrative of situations where redcircling is appropriate holding in land use situations courts have concluded in order for a regulatory takings claim to be ripe there must be a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue recognizing fundamental distinction between firstparty and thirdparty situations and imposing fiduciary duty upon insurer to protect its insureds interest in thirdparty situations recognizing the distinction between stromick and schwab and also noting that the examples of potential grounds for expungement stated in stromick are theoretical examples of situations that were never applied holding that the list of grounds for a motion to quash found in lacode crimp arts 532 and 534 are merely illustrative