v. Llanez-Garcia, 735 F.3d 483, 498 (6th Cir.2013). A large body of casé law interpreting the governmental plan exclusion confirms that “governmental plans”' constitute a type of employee benefit' plan, not a separate Category. See," e.g., Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir.2004) (“Title I of ERISA specifically excludes from its coverage any employee benefit plan that is a governmental plan.”); Shirley v. Maxicare Tex., Inc., 921 F.2d 565, 567 (5th Cir.1991) (“Under 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b), however, ERISA shall not apply to any employee benefit plan if such plan is a governmental plan,”); Lovelace v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 775 F.Supp. 228, 229 (S.D.Ohio 1991) (“ERISA regulates employee benefit plans, such as the [public s 791, 1996 WL 648720, at *1-4 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 4, 1996) (<HOLDING>). This analytical leap to the governmental plan
holding that employee benefit plan sponsored by two participating employers  cook county and the cook county forest preserve district  qualified for governmental plan exclusion holding that disability plan established by state university for benefit of employees qualified for governmental plan exclusion holding that county governments healthcare plan qualified for governmental plan exclusion holding that state law relates to an employee benefit plan and is therefore preempted by erisa if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan holding that healthcare plan established by the state of vermont for eligible employees qualified for governmental plan exclusion