Tags

    News

    Onboarding Best Practices
    Good Guy = Bad Manager :: Bad Guy = Good Manager. Is it a Myth?
    Five Interview Tips for Winning Your First $100K+ Job
    Base Pay Increases Remain Steady in 2007, Mercer Survey Finds
    Online Overload: The Perfect Candidates Are Out There - If You Can Find Them
    Cartus Global Survey Shows Trend to Shorter-Term International Relocation Assignments
    New Survey Indicates Majority Plan to Postpone Retirement
    What do You Mean My Company’s A Stepping Stone?
    Rewards, Vacation and Perks Are Passé; Canadians Care Most About Cash
    Do’s and Don’ts of Offshoring
     
    Error: No such template "/hrDesign/network_profileHeader"!
    Blogs / Send feedback
    Help us to understand what's happening?
    Supreme Court Charts New Course in Pension Plan Case Interpreting ADEA
    Susan Woodhouse
    In Kentucky Retirement Income Systems v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 06-1037 (June 19, 2008), the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Age<br />
    Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to permit Kentucky to increase disabled public safety workers' pensions to the level they would have attained at normal retirement<br />
    age, even though that meant workers who became disabled after reaching retirement age would not receive any pension increase. In a 5-4 decision,1 the Court rejected the position of the EEOC that the pension design discriminated on account of age unless the state could show an equal-cost justification for the difference in benefits received by two employees with equal pay and service but different ages.<br />
    <br />
    <strong><br />
    Application of the OWBPA and ADEA to Pension Plan</strong><br />
    <br />
    The case presented the Court with its first opportunity to address the impact of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) amendments to the ADEA on pension plan<br />
    design. The OWBPA amendments had been adopted after the Court had held that the ADEA did not prohibit discrimination in the provision of employee benefit plans so<br />
    long as the plans were not a "subterfuge adopted for the purpose of evading the ADEA. The OWBPA amendments eliminated the "subterfuge test, substituting a provision<br />
    that discrimination in employee benefits violates the ADEA unless the discrimination is justified by equal cost or equal benefits (language used by prior EEOC regulations).<br />
    The OWBPA amendments also provided various safe harbors and alternatives (such as certain voluntary retirement incentive programs) that were not at issue in this case.<br />
    But the Court sidestepped this opportunity, holding instead that the EEOC had failed to prove that the pension design produced a distinction in benefits "on account of age rather than on account of retirement eligibility, and therefore, failed a threshold test necessary before any of the specific OWBPA benefit provisions would be relevant.<br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <br />
    <a href="../portals/hrcom/story_docs/Articles 2008/Supreme Court Charts New Course in Pension Plan-Aug 18.pdf">Click her</a> for the entire article.<br />
    <br />


     
    Copyright © 1999-2025 by HR.com - Maximizing Human Potential. All rights reserved.
    Example Smart Up Your Business