"The Third Circuit's opinion is a great read, and very persuasive. And yet in some ways, while very compelling, it reads almost as much as a political document -- in the sense of being written to persuade an audience -- as it does as an inevitable outcome of sharp legal reasoning (which it clearly is as well). The Court provides a very plausible interpretation of the statutory language itself, but if that analysis stood alone, segregated from the supporting arguments relied on by the Court for its interpretation of the church plan exemption that are based on canons of statutory interpretation, on legislative history and on the public policy behind ERISA, that analysis would not be half as persuasive." [Kaplan v. St. Peter's Healthcare System, No. 15-1172 (3d Cir. Dec. 29, 2015)]  MORE >>