Headlines about "Age discrimination, incl. ADEA"

Gathered from the web by the editors at BenefitsLink.com.
[Guidance Overview] Second Circuit Rules That Cash Balance Plans Are Not Inherently Age Discriminatory (PDF)
Pages 2-3 of 6 pages. Excerpt: "The Second Circuit ruling makes it quite likely that the age discrimination issue has been put to bed for cash balance plans. Although there is at least one appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit on this same issue, most anticipate that it too will follow the holdings and reasoning of the four Circuit Courts that have unanimously rejected these claims. Should the Ninth Circuit (or any other Circuit) rule to the contrary, however, there might still be a need for Supreme Court resolution." (Proskauer Rose LLP)

[Guidance Overview] Cash Balance Plans Are Not Inherently Age-Discriminatory, According to Second Circuit
Excerpt: "Ruling in two consolidated class action lawsuits, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has held that cash balance plans are not inherently age-discriminatory, even prior to amendments made by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA). The cases are Hirt, et al. v. The Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees, Managers, and Agents, et al. and Bryerton, et al. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al. (Nos. 06-4757, 06-5190, and 07-1680)." (Wolters Kluwer)

[Guidance Overview] Supreme Court ADEA Cases Address Disability Pension Provision and Downsizing (PDF)
Excerpt: "This case clarifies that differential treatment based on pension status does not automatically correlate with age discrimination, but recognizes that discrimination can be shown where pension status is a proxy for age or a plan design is impermissibly motivated by age. To minimize potential exposure to age discrimination claims, employers should exercise particular caution in structuring benefit plans or programs that take age into account, such as phased retirement programs, or that base eligibility on pension status." (Buck Consultants)

[Guidance Overview] Supreme Court Issues Two Significant Employee Benefits Decisions, But Uncertainty Remains (PDF)
4 pages. Excerpt: "In its recent decisions in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. E.E.O.C. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, the United States Supreme Court addressed several important issues regarding the design of employee benefit plans and related litigation. Both decisions, however, have unfortunately left a number of significant issues undecided and may lead to confusion and uncertainty for litigants and courts alike." (Dechert LLP)

[Guidance Overview] Teacher Did Not Meet Early Retirement Plan's Minimum Age Requirement
Excerpt: "Without addressing the open question of whether the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) contemplates a cause of action for reverse age bias, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a school district did not violate ICRA's prohibition against age bias when it denied a teacher's application for early retirement incentives on the grounds that she did not meet the plan's minimum age requirement." (Wolters Kluwer)

[Guidance Overview] 2nd Circuit Finds Cash Balance Plans Do Not Offend ERISA Bias Rules
Excerpt: "The trial court judges, Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Hirt v. The Equitable Retirement Plan for Employers, Managers and Agents, 06-4757-cv and 06-5190-cv, and Judge Denny Chin in Bryerton v. Verizon Communications Inc., 07-1680-cv, decided in favor of companies accused of violating the rule against age bias." (New York Law Journal)

Cash-Balance Plans Not Discriminatory, Court Rules
Excerpt: "The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals says that while the benefits provided to younger employees are worth more than the same benefits provided to older employees, that difference is the result of time and compound interest and does not constitute age discrimination." (Workforce Management; free registration required)

[Official Guidance] U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in Hirt v. Equitable, Decided July 9, 2008 (PDF)
15 pages. Excerpt: "Plaintiffs in two separate cases brought claims alleging that 'cash balance' defined benefit plans violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's rule against age-based reductions in the rate of benefit accrual, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(b)(1)(H)(i) (2005), as that rule existed prior to the amendment that took effect as of June 29, 2005." (American Benefits Council)

Cash-Balance Plans Not Discriminatory, Court Says - Fourth Appellate Ruling in Favor of Employers
Excerpt: "In a unanimous decision, the appeals court affirmed two separate lower court rulings finding that cash balance plans sponsored by Verizon Communications Inc. and Equitable Life Assurance Society -- now known as AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. -- do not discriminate against older workers." (Financial Week; free registration required)

[Opinion] ERISA Doesn't Ban 'Cash Balance' Plans; Second Circuit Joins Sisters
Excerpt: "The Second Circuit today joined the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits in holding that a 'cash balance' pension plan doesn't violate the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 despite the fact that older employees (sort of) get less bang for their buck." (Barry Barnett)

Court Dismisses Age Bias Claims Against Hybrid Plan
Excerpt: "The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has ruled the pension equity formula and wear-away period that are part of the Gannett Retirement Plan do not discriminate against older workers." (PLANSPONSOR.com; free registration required)

[Guidance Overview] Pension Plan May Vary Imputed Service Based, in Part, on Age (PDF)
2 pages. Excerpt: "Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the Kentucky plan presented a 'straightforward act of discrimination on the basis of age.' Id., dissent slip op. at 3. The opinion criticized the majority for basing its decision on policy arguments that do not follow a clear rule of law. Justice Kennedy warned that '[b]y embracing the approach rejected by the en banc panel and all other Courts of Appeals that have addressed this issue, this Court creates unevenness in administration, unpredictability in litigation, and uncertainty as to employee rights once thought well settled.' Id., dissent slip op. at 2." (Sutherland)

[Guidance Overview] Supreme Court Narrowly Upholds State's 'Imputed Service' Formula for Disability Pensions
Excerpt: "The lynchpin of the Supreme Court's decision was its interpretation of Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), which involved a 62-year old employee who claimed he was unlawfully discharged by the employer in order to avoid the payment of pension benefits that were about to vest. In Hazen, the Supreme Court found that, without evidence of intent, a dismissal based on pension status was not a dismissal because of age." (Deloitte via BenefitsLink.com)

[Guidance Overview] District Court Refuses To Dismiss ADEA Disparate ERISA Fiduciary Misrepresentation Claims Related WearAways Caused by a Cash Balance Conversion (PDF)
Page 8 of 11 pages. Excerpt: "In George v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, 2008 WL 2307485 (D.S.C. 2008), the district court dismissed ERISA and ADEA age discrimination claims arising out of Duke Energy's conversion of its defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan, but allowed plaintiffs' wearaway claim under ADEA to proceed. The court also concluded that plaintiffs' fiduciary misrepresentation claim may proceed." (Proskauer Rose LLP)

[Guidance Overview] Supreme Court OKs Employer Use of Age as a Factor In Pension Plans
Excerpt: "What does this decision mean for public and private employers going forward? Basically, it means that public workers in Kentucky and states with similar pension plans can continue to rely on the promise of disability retirement benefits if they become disabled. It also means that public and private employers who feared their plans were implicated by the Kentucky Retirements Systems case -- a number estimated at 2,700 employers and 25 million affected workers -- do not have to cut benefits, increase employer contributions, or otherwise restructure their plans to bring them into compliance with the ADEA." (Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP)

[Guidance Overview] High Court Allows Different Calculations for Disability and Age-Related Retirements
Excerpt: "A state retirement system did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by crediting young workers with additional years of service in calculating disability retirement benefits, according to a June 19 Supreme Court decision (Kentucky Retirement Systems et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 06–1037)." (Wolters Kluwer)

[Guidance Overview] U.S. Supreme Court's Rulings on Employee Benefits, Employment Practices (PDF)
2 pages. (Milliman)

[Guidance Overview] Supreme Court's Final Employment Decisions of the 2007 Term Are a Mixed Bag for Employers
Two of the Supreme Court Decisions dealt with ADEA issues: Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (affirmative defense under ADEA) and Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (standard for discrimination claim under ADEA). (Winston & Strawn LLP)

[Guidance Overview] Supreme Court Issues Two Decisions Affecting Benefit Plans (PDF)
5 pages. Excerpt: "On June 19, the United States Supreme Court issued decisions in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, . . . and in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, . . . . The first decision discusses the disparate impact test under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); the second addresses the standard of review to be applied by the courts when reviewing a decision of a claims fiduciary that may have a financial interest in the outcome of the decision." (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP)

[Opinion] Distinguishing among Employees Based on Pension Status
Excerpt: "To summarize and oversimplify, in Kentucky Retirement Systems the Court held that it was legal to provide lower benefits to police and firefighters who retire on disability at or near retirement age than to those who would have had to wait longer to qualify for regular retirement. Relying on Hazen Paper but moving well past it, the Court held that pension status is not a proxy for age here even though, in the Kentucky case, age is an explicit element of pension eligibility." (Pension & Benefits Blog)

Reassessing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Excerpt: "This AARP Public Policy Institute report by David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine reviews the existing research on age discrimination in employment and assesses how successful the ADEA has been in achieving its goals, along with how well it might support the continued employment of older adults in the future." (AARP)

Supreme Court Eases Age Bias Suits for Workers
Excerpt: "The age-bias ruling, written by Justice David H. Souter, acknowledged that 'there is no denying that putting employers to the work of persuading fact-finders that their choices are reasonable makes it harder and costlier to defend' age-bias accusations and that the ruling 'will sometimes affect the way employers do business with their employees.'" (The New York Times; free registration required)

A Supreme Court Victory for Older Workers
Excerpt: "The Supreme Court ruled for older workers Thursday in a closely watched age discrimination case, placing on employers the burden of proving that a layoff or other action that hurts older workers more than others was based not on age but on some other 'reasonable factor.'" (The New York Times; free registration required)

[Guidance Overview] Supreme Court Rules Kentucky Disability Pension Plan Not Age Discriminatory
Excerpt: "In a case that should be of interest for employment discrimination and employee benefit scholars, Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, the Supreme Court in a close 5-4 decision has found the Kentucky public pension plan not to be age discriminatory in an usual division of the Justices." (Workplace Prof Blog)

[Guidance Overview] Duke Energy ERISA Decision Update
Excerpt: "At issue in George v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan (D. S.C.) was whether the employer's conversion to a cash balance plan violated ERISA or the ADEA." (Workforce Management; free registration required)

ExxonMobil Pilot Retirement Mandate Survives Legal Challenge
Excerpt: "A federal judge in Texas has dismissed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit alleging ExxonMobil violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by requiring its corporate pilots to retire at age 60." (PLANSPONSOR.com; free registration required)

Pension Lawsuit Could Cost Baltimore County $19M
Excerpt: "Baltimore County could be forced to dole out more than $19 million to pay back alleged 'excess' pension contributions to older employees, actuaries said. The estimate came in response to a federal age discrimination lawsuit filed against Baltimore County government for requiring older employees to make higher pension contributions than younger employees. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed lawsuit in September claiming the county and six labor organizations discriminated against two named retired employees and others at least 40 years old." (The Examiner)

[Guidance Overview] Supreme Court Ends AARP Challenge to EEOC's ADEA Exemption for Retiree Medical Benefits
Excerpt: "It has been a long time coming, but the U.S. Supreme Court finally has brought to an end the longrunning legal and political saga involving the ability of employers to coordinate their retiree medical plans with Medicare eligibility. Without elaboration or explanation, the Court on March 24, 2008 announced it would not review the AARP's challenge to an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) exemption for such arrangements promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC's ADEA exemption took effect on December 26, 2007." (Deloitte via BenefitsLink.com)

Benefits Interference Suit Given New Life by Federal Court
Excerpt: "A federal appellate court has reinstated an employee's lawsuit over whether his former employer fired him to avoid paying for his shoulder surgery. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a ruling by an Arkansas federal judge dismissing Danny Fitzgerald's lawsuit against Action Inc. over an alleged violation of the Employee Retirement income Security Act (ERISA). The appellate panel sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings." (PLANSPONSOR.com; free registration required)

Lawsuit Targets Pension Plan Change to Cash Balance Formula
Excerpt: "A federal judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit over alleged cuts in pension benefits brought against Solvay Chemicals Inc., one of southwest Wyoming's leading soda ash producers. An attorney for the plaintiffs said employees of Solvay have been invited to join the national class-action lawsuit aimed at fighting changes in the soda ash giant's pension benefits. U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson authorized the class action in the lawsuit filed against Solvay in a Feb. 8 order and ruled that the case could move forward under federal age discrimination laws." (CasperStarTribune.net)

[Guidance Overview] U. S. Supreme Court Affirms EEOC Medicare Coordination Ruling
Excerpt: "In a closely watched case, the United States Supreme Court has refused the AARP's request for review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in AARP v. EEOC, thereby affirming the EEOC's ability to exempt from the age discrimination statutes the coordination of retiree health benefits with Medicare. This ruling clears the way for employers to design retiree health benefit plans that feature coordination of these benefits." (Littler Mendelson P.C.)

Supreme Court Allows Retiree Benefit Cuts
Excerpt: "The Supreme Court on Monday gave employers a green light to reduce health benefits for millions of retirees who turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare. The justices turned away a legal challenge from AARP, the nation's leading senior citizens lobby, which had contended these lower benefits for older retirees violated the federal law against age discrimination. The court's action upholds, in effect, a rule adopted last year by federal regulators that says the 'coordination of retiree health benefits with Medicare' is exempt from the anti-age-bias law." (Los Angeles Times)

High Court Declines AARP Appeal on Retiree Health Benefits
Excerpt: "The Supreme Court [today] let stand a federal policy that allows employers to reduce their health insurance expenses for retired workers once they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare." (AP via The New York Times; free registration required)

ADEA Claim in Cash Balance Case Survives Challenge
Excerpt: "A federal judge in Colorado has given participants challenging their employer's cash balance plan a chance to rewrite their lawsuit to better define a potential class of plaintiffs." (PLANSPONSOR.com; free registration required)

Supreme Court to Discuss EEOC Retiree Health Plan Exemption
Excerpt: "The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a discussion for Friday, March 21, on whether it will review a federal appeals court ruling that effectively allows employers to reduce health care benefits when retirees become eligible for Medicare without facing age discrimination charges." (Workforce Management; free registration required)

Audio and Text from AP on Age Discrimination Cases before the Supreme Court
Excerpt: "The Supreme Court [heard arguments yesterday] on whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits federal employers from retaliating against workers who complain of age discrimination. Madeleine Brand talks to Slate.com legal analyst Dahlia Lithwick about the case." (National Public Radio)

Treasury Validates Some Pension Rollbacks
Excerpt: "Under pressure from employers, the Treasury issued a ruling that allows companies to freeze the pensions of older workers in certain cases without running afoul of laws meant to protect employees' nest eggs." (The Wall Street Journal)

[Guidance Overview] Another Court Determines Cash Balance Plan not Age Discriminatory
Excerpt: "Yet another legal victory has been won for cash balance plans as the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has ruled a cash balance plan's interest accrual and conversion formulas are not age discriminatory." (PLANSPONSOR.com; free registration required)

[Guidance Overview] Employee Benefits as of January 24, 2008 (PDF)
5 pages. This edition includes: A Look at ERISA Litigation: Preemption of San Francisco's Health Reform Law; Qualified Plan Queries: IRS Informally Indicates No Redlining of Plans Required for Cycle B Submissions; EEOC Regulations Resolving the Erie County Issue; Exec Comp Corner: SEC Comments on Year 1 Compensation Disclosures; and, Payroll Tax & Fringe Benefit Pointers: Reporting Settlement Payments to Claimants and Their Law Firms. (Miller & Chevalier Chartered)

[Guidance Overview] Supreme Court - MetLife v. Glenn and other Employment Cases (PDF)
2 pages. Excerpt: "The United States Supreme Court recently announced that it will consider three cases that may impact employers and employees. These cases are briefly summarized . . . ." (Winston & Strawn LLP)

[Guidance Overview] U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Three New Employment and ERISA Cases (PDF)
3 pages. Excerpt: "In three more cases the Court agreed to hear on Friday concerning age discrimination, retaliation and ERISA claims, the Court's decisions will likely impact not only the success of employers in defending certain employment cases, but also the types (and number) of employees protected by anti-discrimination statutes. While many expect the Court to continue its relatively conservative approach in the employment area, even pro-employer decisions may negatively impact employers if the end result is to prompt Congress to roll back the Court's decisions." (Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP)

[Guidance Overview] Coordination of Retiree Health Benefits with Medicare and State Health Benefits
Excerpt: "The final rule creates an exemption from the ADEA and permits retiree employee benefit plans that provide health benefits to be altered, reduced, or eliminated when a participant is eligible for Medicare (or for the health benefits under a comparable state health benefit plan), whether or not the participant actually enrolls in the benefit program." (Littler Mendelson P.C.)

Supreme Court Examines Whether State's Retirement System Violates Age Discrimination Act
Excerpt: "Although this case involves a challenge to a single state's retirement system, the Supreme Court's decision could affect numerous other state and local government retirement plans. Several entities have filed amicus briefs in support of the state. If the 6th Circuit decision is upheld, it may force certain states to change the provisions of their statutes, and in some cases their state constitutions, to comply." (Deloitte via BenefitsLink.com)

Overview: Employer-Sponsored Retiree Health Care Coverage Can Again Be Coordinated with Medicare
Excerpt: "In sum, after the resolution of various court challenges and appeals -- and notwithstanding that the AARP still has an outstanding writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court -- the EEOC, on December 26, 2007, finalized and made immediately effective a narrow exemption to the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) that permits employer-sponsored health plans to alter, reduce, or eliminate a retiree's benefits when that individual becomes eligible for Medicare or a comparable state health benefit plan (regardless of whether the individual actually enrolls in Medicare or the comparable state plan)." (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP)

Reactions Vary on EEOC Changes to Retiree Health Benefits Rule
Excerpt: "Retiree advocates gave a mixed reaction . . . to a new regulation allowing employers to provide more limited health care benefits for retirees who are 65 and older, though some critics called the change tantamount to discrimination." (USA TODAY)

Supreme Court Case Could Expose Employers to More Age Bias Trials
Excerpt: "The central issue in the case for employers is whether the Supreme Court will affirm an appeals court decision and 'blur' the distinction between ADEA and the Title 7 federal discrimination statute." (Workforce Management; free registration required)

Overview: EEOC Issues Final ADEA Exemption for Coordinating Retiree Medical Benefits with Medicare
Excerpt: "The exemption is narrow. For example, it does not provide ADEA relief for employers that attempt to coordinate any other employment-related benefits with Medicare eligibility. Additionally, it does not apply to health benefits for active employees. These employees are protected by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, which specifically prohibits employers from providing different health benefits to active employees who are Medicare eligible." (Deloitte via BenefitsLink.com)

Oral Argument Transcript Analysis of Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC
Excerpt: "The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments . . . in the case of Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, a case about the intersection of age discrimination law and public pension plans." (Workplace Prof Blog)

Older Workers' Benefits Argued to Supreme Court As Kentucky's State Retirement Plan Challenged
Excerpt: "Kentucky's public employee retirement plan discriminates against older workers in violation of federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court was told yesterday. Malcolm Stewart, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, told the justices that the state's plan is structured so that two employees who become disabled, each with the same total time of service but of different ages, could receive dramatically different benefits." (The Courier-Journal)

Supreme Court Ready to Hear Public Employee Disability/ADEA Case Today
Excerpt: "The Supreme Court hears oral argument on Wednesday, January 9 in Kentucky Retirement Systems v EEOC (Docket No 06-1037). The High Court will consider 'whether any use of age as a factor in a retirement plan is 'arbitrary' and thus renders the plan facially discriminatory in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.'" (Workplace Prof Blog)

AARP Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Reject Recent EEOC Rule Allowing Coordination of Retiree Health Benefits with Medicare
Excerpt: "In November, AARP filed a court petition in response to the Third Circuit decision, saying the ruling 'threatens to undermine the constitutional balance between congressional legislation and executive agency rulemaking.' The decision's 'misguided approach threatens the health care benefits of approximately 10 million older Americans,' according to the petition." (Human Resource Executive Online; free registration required)

Hewitt Consulting Bulletin Discusses EEOC Final Regulations and Their Impact on Retiree Health Plan Design (PDF)
2 pages. Excerpt: "The final EEOC regulations, which have been in the works for several years and are effective December 26, 2007, provide guidance to employers on the scope of this narrow exemption. The exemption essentially ends a controversy that began seven years ago with a U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Erie County Retirees Ass'n v. County of Erie (3rd Cir. 2000)." (Hewitt Associates)

Overview: EEOC Issues Final Regulations Allowing Employers to Coordinate Retiree Health Benefits with Medicare Eligibility
Excerpt: "EBIA Comment: As the EEOC noted, most employers aren't legally obligated to provide retiree health benefits, and many don't offer them at all. However, employers who do offer such benefits (and their advisors) will likely welcome the final regulations, which are intended to help employers create, adopt, and maintain a wide range of retiree health plan designs, such as Medicare bridge plans and Medicare wrap-around plans. Employers are now free to supplement a retiree's Medicare coverage without having to demonstrate under the ADEA that the coverage is identical to the health coverage of non-Medicare eligible retirees or that the cost of the coverage was the same." (Employee Benefits Institute of America)

Overview: EEOC Final Rules Allow Differentials in Pre- and Post-Medicare Retiree Health Benefits
Excerpt: "Sec. 9 of the ADEA authorizes the EEOC to 'establish such reasonable exemptions to and from any or all provisions of the Act as it may find necessary and proper in the public interest.' In the preamble to the final regulations, the EEOC explains, 'Rising health care costs, larger numbers of workers nearing retirement age, and mandated changes in the way employers must account for the long-term costs of providing retiree health coverage have been substantial factors contributing to the erosion of this valuable employment benefit." (Wolters Kluwer Financial Services)

AARP Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Ruling That EEOC Lacks Authority To Allow Employers To Reduce Health Care Benefits for Medicare-Eligible Retirees
Excerpt: "AARP has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had the authority to issue a Dec. 26, 2007, regulation that allows employers to legally eliminate or reduce health benefits for retirees when they reach age 65 and become eligible for Medicare while retaining benefits for retirees under age 65, CQ HealthBeat reports (Reichard, CQ HealthBeat, 1/3)." (Kaiser Family Foundation)

New Retirement Age Rule Does Not Change Ruling on Plan's Definition, According to Court
Excerpt: "The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has determined that a new regulation governing the definition of normal retirement age does not change its earlier ruling that a cash balance plan did not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by defining normal retirement age in terms of vested years of service." (PLANSPONSOR.com; free registration required)

Overview: New EEOC Rule Exempts Some Retiree Health Plans from ADEA
Excerpt: "The EEOC's final rule does not yet provide complete assurance to employers, because AARP sought review of the EEOC's action by the Supreme Court in a certiorari petition filed on November 19, 2007. Until the Supreme Court denies certiorari or affirms the appellate court's decision approving the final rule, there remains a potential (albeit minimal) litigation risk to employers that provide pre-65 retirees with health benefits different than those provided to post-65 retirees." (Thompson Hine LLP)

Court Dismisses WaMu Cash Balance Plan Discrimination Claim
Excerpt: "The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has dismissed claims by a group of Washington Mutual employees that the company's cash balance plan benefit formula discriminates against participants based on age." (PLANSPONSOR.com; free registration required)

Reactions Vary on Changes to Retiree Health Benefits Rule
Excerpt: "The regulation from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes clear that employers can spend more on retirees under 65 than those over 65 without breaking age discrimination laws, so they can cut or reduce benefits for retirees when they become eligible for Medicare. That could mean more expansive benefits for retirees under 65 than those who are over 65, says the AARP, a membership organization that represents older Americans. 'The EEOC moved toward legitimizing discrimination based on age,' spokesman Drew Nannis says. 'This is a civil rights issue.'" (USA TODAY)

The links shown above have been gathered from the web by the editors at BenefitsLink.com. Each article's publisher is shown above in parentheses. Opinions expressed in each article are those of the article's publisher, not necessarily those of BenefitsLink.com, Inc. or any web site that displays these headlines in a "frame." You should contact the listed publisher for copyright information about any particular article or to inquire into the right to use the article in any manner.