In Massachusetts v. Morash, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that payments made to employees from a fund established by their employer and financed through contributions deducted from their wages did not constitute "employee benefits" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The case involved two former bank executives who sought severance pay after they were fired following a merger. They argued that because the funds for these payments came out of an account funded by employee contributions, it was subject to ERISA regulations which would have entitled them to certain protections and benefits upon termination of employment. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that such arrangements are more akin to payroll practices than benefit plans as defined under ERISA.

In the dissenting opinion for Massachusetts v. Morash, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's interpretation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was too narrow and inconsistent with congressional intent. He contended that ERISA should apply to all employee benefit plans unless explicitly exempted by Congress, including vacation payments made from a general asset fund like in this case. The majority’s decision not to classify these as “employee welfare benefit plans” under ERISA could potentially leave employees unprotected if their employers become insolvent or otherwise fail to make promised payments. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that applying ERISA would be burdensome for employers; instead asserting it would provide necessary protections for workers without imposing undue hardship on businesses.