Non-sex discriminatory mortality tables

[rocknrolls2]

I am working with a client with a defined benefit plan for collectively bargained employees. The overwhelming majority of the participants are male. The plan uses the RP-2014 blue collar male table for actuarial equivalence for participants and the RP-2014 blue collar female table for beneficiaries. In 1983, the US Supreme Court decided Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, which held that the use of sec-based tables violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Has anything developed which has changed this result in the interim? Or can this be justified by using a table for a single gender for all participants, regardless of actual gender? Thanks!

[david rigby]

You misunderstand the application of Norris.  The ruling states that you cannot use different tables for males vs. females.  You can use any table so long as it is reasonable for the stated purpose, and defined in the plan (ie, the "definitely determinable" requirement of ERISA), and you apply it equally for males and females.  Using different tables for participants vs. beneficiaries is also acceptable (likely, it is advisable).  The definition you quote is probably reasonable, but other reasonable tables are also possible.

The Enrolled Actuary can provide examples of several different tables/updates.

[Peter Gulia]

Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 708, 709-711 (Apr. 25, 1978) (“Even a true generalization about the class is an insufficient reason for disqualifying an individual to whom the generalization does not apply.”) (An employer violated Title VII by requiring its female employees to make larger contributions to a pension fund than male employees to obtain the same monthly benefits upon retirement.) (Congress decided that classifications based on sex, like those based on national origin or race, are unlawful.), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep435/usrep435702/usrep435702.pdf.

Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 1081, 1084 (July 6, 1983) (“[T]he classification of employees on the basis of sex is no more permissible at the pay-out stage of a retirement plan than at the pay-in stage.”) (“The use of sex-segregated actuarial tables to calculate retirement benefits violates Title VII whether or not the tables reflect an accurate prediction of the longevity of women as a class[.]”), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep463/usrep4631073/usrep4631073.pdf.

[rocknrolls2]

Thanks David and Peter,

One thing that likely also played a factor at the time Manhart and Norris were decided was that the "glass ceiling" was substantially lower than it is today. I know from the experience of two brilliant highly-motivated adult daughters, who have moved rapidly up the corporate ladders of their respective careers, only to run smack into the glass ceiling as it currently stands.

 

[david rigby]

Both Manhart and Norris involved governmental plans.  Technically, those decisions did not apply to other plans, at the time.