the withdrawal statute did not require direct employment. Id. at 813. The circuit court then stated: “The word ‘employer’ describes one who [is] a signatory employer with respect to the [pension] plan.” Id. (emphasis added). Because the employer’s subcontractors continued to perform work covered by the collective bargaining agreement the employer had signed, it was subject to withdrawal liability. Id. This review of the relevant case law reveals one fact common to all of the parties held subject to withdrawal liability: they were contractually bound to make pension contributions, either in collective bargaining agreements, general cargo agreements, or shipping association agreements. Cf. also Laborers Local 938 v. B.R. Starnes Co., 827 F.2d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). In this case, it is undisputed that SPAD did
holding that under the flsas liberal definition of employer the state welfare agencies are the employers of ihss providers holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision holding that erisas definition of participant does not include a former employee who became an employer and was allowed to continue purchasing plan coverage holding that only employers not individuals acting in their individual capacity who do not otherwise meet the definition of employers can be held liable under title vii holding that erisas definition of employer does not include persons other than signatory employers