Conditioning Optional Forms Pension Benefits on Good Health

[Guest jmc51]

Does anyone know of guidance on the issue of whether a defined benefit pension plan may permissibly condition the receipt of optional forms of benefits (i.e, forms of benefits other than the QJSA) on the good health of the participant at the time of election? The good health requirement is enforced by subjecting the participant to a medical examination.

Any thoughts are appreciated. thanks

[AndyH]

I cannot imagine how that would be permitted. Do you have an example?

[Guest jmc51]

I cannot imagine how that would be permitted. Do you have an example?

yes, what if a plan says something to the following effect:

"In addition to the QJSA form of pension, there are other options available to you. Your spouse's consent is required for any of these options. In the case of each of the following, you must be in good health at the time of your application or have chosen the options at least 12 months before the effective date of your normal pension. If you do not elect one of the following optional ways to receive your pension at least one year before the effective date of your pension, you will most likely be asked to take a medical examination. The optional forms of payments are....."

Lets assume the participant has the ability to choose an effective date.

[masteff]

You might look at whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) says anything on this.

[AndyH]

Seems to me you have pension and non-pension issues.

Pension issues would include the need to test these optional forms of payment under the benefis rights and features rules of 401(a)(4). That would be pretty weird but I would imagine that could be satisfied.

But then you have the 411 accrual rules which (in part) say that an accrued benefit cannot decrease on account to advancing age or increased service. You might have an issue with the age.

Would there be 411(d)(6) cutback issues if you denied a benefit that was available previously. I would think so.

So, this is just one opinion, but I think such provisions would violate 411.

And I would think there would be more non-pension discrimination issues that woud be more problematic.

So, one opinion is NO.

p.s. The 12 month election would not satisfy the QJSA rules IMHO either.

[masteff]

You might look at whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) says anything on this.

Actually, after review, I'll restate this... you'd likely violate ADA.

Edit: to be nice, here's the most concise place to look: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/ada17.html

Under "What employment practices are covered?" it lists benefits.

Under "Can I require medical examinations...?" it says "Once you have hired an applicant, you cannot require a medical examination or ask an employee questions about disability unless you can show that these requirements are job related and necessary for the conduct of your business."

Oh, and I concur w/ what AndyH says above.

[Guest jmc51]

You might look at whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) says anything on this.

Actually, after review, I'll restate this... you'd likely violate ADA.

Edit: to be nice, here's the most concise place to look: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/ada17.html

Under "What employment practices are covered?" it lists benefits.

Under "Can I require medical examinations...?" it says "Once you have hired an applicant, you cannot require a medical examination or ask an employee questions about disability unless you can show that these requirements are job related and necessary for the conduct of your business."

Oh, and I concur w/ what AndyH says above.

Its a multiemployer plan so I an not sure the ADA is an issue? But i've taken heed to the 411 issue. thanks.