at 105. According to Rodriguez, the purpose was to substitute these persons and initiate a recruitment process. Id. at 103. Ceinos testified that the recruitment plan was based upon the fact that there were a substantial amount of employees in key positions near the retirement age, which could lead to numerous simultaneous vacancies for an extended period of time. See Docket # 89, p. 469. Ceinos believed this could negatively impact Ex-Lax’s operations. Id. On this point, the First Circuit has held that “company officials are permitted to gather information relevant to personnel planning without raising the specter of age discrimination.” Wallace v. O.C. Tanner Recognition Co., 299 F.3d 96, 101 (1st Cir.2002) (citing Cox v. Dubuque Bank & Trust Co., 163 F.3d 492, 497 (8th Cir.1998)) (<HOLDING>); Colosi v. Electri-Flex Co., 965 F.2d 500, 502
holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language holding that many courts have recognized that an employer may make reasonable inquiries into the retirement plans of its employees 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 serial offer of retirement plans did not implicate erisa holding that the fact that employees mention or ask about retirement is not evidence of age discrimination and therefore not finding sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of a supervisor who frequently asked plaintiff about his retirement plans