Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases 
Summaries and links to full text
LawMemo - First in Employment Law Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Advanced Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Low Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

LawMemo Employment Law Blog 
All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic 
Also read LawMemo Arbitration Blog


« Supreme Court will decide 42 USC Section 1981 retaliation case | Main | Supreme Court denies motion to dismiss ERISA case »

Supreme Court will decide benefit plan age discrimination case
September 25, 2007 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (certiorari granted 09/25/2007)
Details: http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/Kentucky/

EEOC sued claiming that a disability-retirement-benefits plan for state and county employees violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that EEOC did not establish a prima facie case; the 6th Circuit, en banc 10-4, reversed.

The KRS disability-retirement-benefits plan disqualifies employees who are still working from receiving disability-retirement benefits if they have already reached normal retirement-benefit age at the time they become disabled. The plan also calculates disability retirement benefits in such a way that an older employee who is eligible to receive disability benefits receives fewer benefits - in the form of lower monthly benefit payments - than a younger disabled employee receiving disability-retirement benefits who is similar to the older disabled employee in every relevant factor other than age.

The 6th Circuit held that (1) EEOC established a prima facie case because the plan is facially discriminatory on the basis of age and (2) when a plan is facially discriminatory a plaintiff does not need additional proof of discriminatory animus to establish a prima facie claim of disparate treatment.

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the 6th Circuit's judgment.

LawMemo.Com


EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.