In a message dated 11/26/01 8:21:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, Michelle.Cash@ENRON.com writes: 
What do you think?  Michelle 
>  -----Original Message----- 
> From:     "Notestine, Kerry" <KNotestine@littler.com>@ENRON   
> Sent:    Monday, November 26, 2001 8:56 AM 
> To:    Cash, Michelle; Sullivan, Kriste 
> Subject:    RE: Sec. 3.4 B Procedures 
>  
>  
> I recall some concern from the benefits people that placing employees 
> on a "leave of absence" might disqualify them from certain other 
> benefits like AD&D which requires actual attendance at work.  Thus, we 
> need to be careful about the terminology used for the WARN notice 
> period.  Otherwise, the attached seems good to me. 
> Would it be appropriate to amend section 2.3(e)of the plan with this 
> amendment?  As you recall, I was uncomfortable with section 2.3 
> because it isolated those formerly on LTD and may discriminate against 
> those with disabilities. Why not just make it neutral.  Everyone must 
> be actively at work for 6 months (a shorter period probably is 
> preferable) before they are eligible to receive severance, or 
> something to that effect.   
> Kerry E Notestine  
Michelle, 
Here are some thoughts: 
If the benefits which require employees to be actually in attendance are insured benefits, it would be a good idea to contact the insurance company to see how the WARN leave of absence or furlough affects coverage under the group policy.  The insurance company may not pay the benefit regardless of what Enron wants to do.  If when the insurance company understands the circumstances, would be willing to pay a benefit to an employee on WARN leave of absence, then it would be a good idea to have the Welfare Benefits Plans Committee adopt a procedure for such insured plans that states employees on WARN leave of absence or furlough with pay are considered to be actively at work during such period that they are instructed not to come to their work location during such time. 
As to Section 2.3(e) of the Plan, we could either delete that section and add a six month active employment eligibility period with no service bridge to Section 2.1, or revise (e) to state the same thing. 
Pat