|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Supreme Court Finds State Disability Pension Plan does not Violate ADEA.Ford & Harrison LLP - July 07, 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 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 FAA to Raise Pilots' Mandatory Retirement Age (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - April 03, 2007 Employer May Need to Revisit Their Internal Policies.
|
ArticlesFound: 7 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
43rd Annual Midwest Labor and Employment Law Seminar on October 12-13, 2008
Easton
October 12, 2008 Baker HostetlerReserve the Dates!!! – Public Sexual Harassment Training Webinar for Supervisors and ManagersOnline
October 14, 2008 Ballard RosenbergThe 2008 Nevada Employer: RenoReno
October 14, 2008 LittlerSouth Carolina's Immigration Law, I-9 & E-Verify Breakfast BriefingSpartanburg
October 14, 2008 Ford & HarrisonEmployment Law WorkshopLa Jolla
October 14, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsHiring minors: Legal issues to considerPhiladelphia
October 14, 2008 Buchanan IngersollEmployment Law Developments in IndianaCarmel
October 15, 2008 OgletreeEmployment Law Developments in TennesseeNashville
October 15, 2008 OgletreeWorkplace Harassment SeminarIndianapolis
October 16, 2008 Indiana Chamber of CommerceFlorida Employment Law UpdateTampa
October 16, 2008 Ogletree |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2008 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