Posts Tagged ‘Age Discrimination in Employment Act’

“Early Retirement” Program Discriminates On Basis Of Age

JUNE 28, 1999 VOLUME 6, NUMBER 52

Beginning in 1970, the Gary, Indiana public school system was faced with a major problem. Student enrollment was declining rapidly (the number of students was to drop by one third in the next fifteen years), and the school system found itself laying off teachers and administrators.

In 1982, the Gary Teacher’s Union proposed a solution that seemed like a good idea. If the school district offered an early-retirement incentive, those teachers near retirement age might choose to leave early, reducing the need for layoffs. Furthermore, the teachers who left under such a system would tend to be higher-paid teachers, so that the effect on school budgets would be lessened.

In 1984, Gary Community School Corporation formally adopted an Early Retirement Incentive Program. Under the Program, teachers aged 58 to 61 were offered between 40% and 50% of the starting salary for a new teacher in special incentives to stop teaching. At age 62, the incentives would end; by that age, the teachers would qualify for regular retirement benefits. A few years later, a similar program was offered to school administrators.

Federal law (the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against any employees based solely on age. Thirty four Gary teachers and administrators brought suit against the school system, alleging that the Early Retirement Incentive Program did just that.

The school system argued that the program did not discriminate on the basis of age. Any teacher or administrator who chose to retire at age 58 (instead of the “normal” retirement age of 62) could qualify for the incentive program, reasoned the school system. No employee was either required to retire or prohibited from retiring early.

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the complaining teachers. By way of illustration, the Court of Appeals described two hypothetical teachers–one aged 58 and the other aged 66. If both teachers had decided they wanted to teach for four more years, and retire at ages 62 and 70, respectively, they would be in identical positions except for their ages. But under the Early Retirement Incentive Program, the 58-year-old teacher could instead elect to retire “early” and collect a bonus. While the 66-year-old teacher could retire on his or her “regular” retirement, he or she would nonetheless be retiring “early” and would experience a reduction in the retirement benefit he or she had planned for. Since the only difference between the two hypothetical teachers is their age, the Gary school system’s Early Retirement program discriminates on the basis of age and violates the ADEA.

The court was also asked to address the proper calculation of damages for each of the plaintiffs. At trial, the jury had decided that the Gary school system’s actions had not been willful; had the ruling been otherwise, the plaintiffs would have been entitled to greater damages. The Court of Appeals, however, upheld the trial court’s finding on damages. As a result, each of the complaining teachers and administrators was awarded the same amount of money they would have received in Early Retirement Incentives had they decided to retire at age 58. Solon v. Gary Community School Corporation, June 14, 1999.

California Ordered To Defend Disability Payment Structure

JUNE 7, 1999 VOLUME 6, NUMBER 49

Federal law (the Age Discrimination in Employment Act–the ADEA) prohibits discrimination “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s age.” The law specifically protects all employees over age 40.

Recently, the California Public Employees Retirement System (“CalPERS”) was accused of violating the terms of the ADEA in the way it calculates disability benefits. Under rules adopted in 1980, a disabled state employee is entitled to receive 50% of his or her income at the time disability began, but only up to the amount the employee would receive if he or she continued in active employment until age 55.

Imagine, for instance, that two California police officers were hired on the same day–one age 25 and the other age 45. One year later, they are both injured in the same accident. Under CalPERS rules, the younger officer receives half her salary at the time of the accident, but the older officer is limited to 20% of his salary.

In order to reach this result, CalPERS first assumes that both officers would have retired at age 55. Since the older officer would only have ten years of service, he would only be eligible to receive retirement benefits of 20% of his final salary. Since the younger officer would have thirty years of service, she would receive half her final salary in retirement benefits. In other words, the older officer would receive a lower disability benefit solely because of his age at the time of hiring.

But does this treatment discriminate against the older officer solely on the basis of age? California state employee Ronald Arnett and seven other employees argued that it did, and filed a class action against CalPERS and the State of California seeking to change the method of calculating disability benefits.

Prior to the 1980 change, CalPERS had paid 50% of the last salary to all disabled employees, regardless of age or remaining years of service. Of course, when the beneficiary reached retirement age, his or her benefit would then be converted into a retirement benefit, and an employee hired at an older age would find his or her retirement benefits reduced. In the meantime, however, the disability benefits would not be affected by the age of the employee at the time of hiring.

The 1980 change was adopted by the California Legislature as a cost-saving device. It seemed to have been approved by the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in the 1993 case of Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins. In that case, the employee alleged that his employer had dismissed him because he was just about to reach the number of years of service required for his pension plan to vest. That may be, ruled the U.S. Supreme Court, but it does not amount to age discrimination–if anything, it is discrimination on the basis of length of service, which is not the same thing as age.

In the CalPERS case, California argued that any disparate treatment was based on the prospective length of service, and so permissible. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, and directed the case back to the trial court for a determination whether California’s 1980 law was in fact motivated by a discriminatory intent. While the California public employees did not win outright, they at least won their day in court. Arnett, et al, vs. CalPERS, June 2, 1999.

©2017 Fleming & Curti, PLC