Zaid v. Executive Office of the President

**What Happened:** An employee sued FCA US LLC (formerly Chrysler) after being denied benefits under the company's Disability Absence Program. The worker claimed the company breached their contract by improperly handling their disability leave request and benefits. The employee argued that the program should be treated as a formal employee benefit plan with stronger legal protections. **What the Court Decided:** The court ruled entirely in favor of FCA and dismissed all of the employee's claims. The judge found that FCA's Disability Absence Program was simply a payroll practice, not a formal employee benefit plan that would be protected under federal law (ERISA). The court also determined that the employee failed to prove their case under Michigan state law regarding contract violations. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling shows that not all workplace benefits programs receive the same legal protections. Companies may structure disability programs as "payroll practices" rather than formal benefit plans, which can make it harder for workers to challenge denials or improper handling of their claims. Workers should carefully review how their employer's disability programs are structured and understand that some programs may offer fewer legal protections than others.