|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Supreme Court Rules that Imputing Years of Service for Disabled Employee Does Not Discriminate Against Older Workers.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - June 27, 2008 In a 5-4 split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky's state retirement plan did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") by increasing the years of service for employees who become disabled before they are eligible for normal retirement benefits. Report Link Supreme Court Finds State Disability Pension Plan does not Violate ADEA.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 26, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that Kentucky’s disability retirement program, which imputes years of service to employees who become disabled before becoming eligible for a regular pension, but does not do so for employees who become disabled after becoming pension eligible, does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). See Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (June 19, 2008). In its five to four decision, the Court rejected the argument of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that such a plan automatically discriminates because of age. The Court found that Kentucky’s plan distinguishes among employees based on pension status, not age. In such cases, a person challenging the plan must present evidence that the different treatment was “actually motivated” by age, not pension status, which the EEOC failed to do. Report Link Supreme Court Finds That Kentucky Disability Pension Does Not Violate ADEA.McGuire Woods LLP - June 26, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that Kentucky’s disability pension arrangements for disabled police and firefighters do not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), despite providing greater benefits to employees who become disabled at younger ages. Report Link Supreme Court Charts New Course in Pension Plan Case Interpreting ADEA.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 24, 2008 In Kentucky Retirement Income Systems v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 06-1037 (June 19, 2008), the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Age 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 age, even though that meant workers who became disabled after reaching retirement age would not receive any pension increase. In a 5-4 decision, 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. Report Link Supreme Court Finds No Discrimination In Controversial State Retirement System Plan.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 20, 2008 In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth of Kentucky's disability plan, which was not made available to persons already eligible for normal retirement benefits by virtue of their years of service (or age, plus years of service), was not discriminatory on its face, and did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court emphasized that it was dealing with the "quite special case" of different treatment based on pension status where pension status itself turns on age, noting that the ADEA permits an employer to condition pension eligibility upon age. The Court adopted the rule that, where an employer adopts a pension plan that includes age as a factor, and then treats employees differently based on pension status, the employee must come forward with evidence that the differential treatment was "actually motivated" by age, not pension status. Report Link EEOC Issues Final Rule Permitting Coordination of Retiree Health Plans with Medicare.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 02, 2008 In a move welcomed by many employers and labor unions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for administering the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), issued a final rule, effective December 26, 2007, that exempts from ADEA protection the common employer practice of coordinating retiree health benefits with eligibility for Medicare (see 29 CFR § 1625.32). Under the new rule, employers are free to reduce or eliminate retiree health benefits when retirees become eligible for Medicare (or a comparable state-sponsored health benefit), without any ADEA liability. Report Link FAA to Raise Pilots' Mandatory Retirement Age (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - April 03, 2007 Employer May Need to Revisit Their Internal Policies. Report Link Recent District Court Decision May Hamper Employers' Ability to Reduce Retiree Health Care Programs for Medicare-Eligible Retirees.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - April 25, 2005 In AARP v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania blocked the EEOC from issuing a final rule that would permit employers to provide lesser retiree health benefits to retirees who are eligible for Medicare than to retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare. Report Link District Court Blocks EEOC Rule Allowing Retiree Benefit Reductions At Medicare Facility (pdf).Vedder Price - April 22, 2005 On March 30, 2005, a federal district court in
Pennsylvania enjoined the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from finalizing a rule
allowing employers to reduce
or eliminate health care
benefits for retirees once they
become eligible for Medicare
without violating the Age
Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA). Report Link EEOC Finalizes Rule on Retiree Health and Medicare (pdf).Vedder Price - May 07, 2004 On April 22, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") finalized its proposed rule to grant an exemption from the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") for retiree health plans which are integrated with Medicare or comparable State health benefits programs.
|
Employment Law Seminars
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION
Sacramento
July 8, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPBenefits "Q And A": Get The Benefit From Our Benefits ExpertsEast Elmhurst
2008-7-8 Queens Chamber of CommercePREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Eureka
July 10, 2008 Shaw ValenzaThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActNew London
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPFree Lunchtime Webinar: Protecting Company Assets: Trade Secrets, Non-Competition, And The World Of Restrictive Covenants: Will The Courts Really Enforce These Agreements?Online
July 17, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeMelville
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeIrving
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPComplimentary Breakfast Briefing for In-House Counsel, Senior Management and HR ProfessionalsMemphis
July 22, 2008 Ford & HarrisonInternal Influences /Protecting Your Workplace From Distraction And Destruction - Part IIRiverhead
2008-7-24 Jackson Lewis LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds