Age Discrimination Legal Update
December 2007
Federal courts continue to rule on the legality
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA) provisions and practices.
by Paul
J. Siegel, Esq.
Jackson Lewis
LLP
Following are four recent cases dealing with age discrimination and how the
various federal courts rule on the issue.
Supreme Court To Rule on "Me Too" Testimony by Former Employees
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, on June 11, 2007, to review a federal appeals
court decision permitting trial courts to allow testimony of non-party former
employees about their own discrimination experiences, including those involving
conduct by supervisors who played no role in the action challenged by the plaintiff.
The testimony was introduced to show that discrimination against older workers
pervaded the workplace and to persuade jurors that plaintiff's layoff was discriminatory. Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendolsohn,
No. 06-1221 (cert. granted June 11, 2007).
The risk of jury confusion and prejudicial testimony makes this case crucial
for defense of discrimination claims.
The Tenth Circuit issued a decision last year which made it more difficult
for employers to obtain exclusion of testimony of non-party former employees
asserting that their terminations also resulted from bias. This evidence, in
effect, forces employers to rebut the allegations of non-claimants through a
series of mini-trials within the primary trial, distracting from the real issue
of plaintiff's treatment. No doubt, the "me too" testimony could greatly increase
the risk of jury confusion and litigation costs.
The Tenth Circuit's decision is limited to reductions-in-force and conflicts
with contrary rulings by the Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits. The Tenth
Circuit rejected that proposition that evidence related to actions taken by
the "same supervisor" is appropriate in the context of discriminatory disciplinary
actions. It did so because of its conclusion that the case "is not about individual
conduct but about a companywide policy of which all [of the employer's] supervisors
were allegedly aware."
Employers' Ability To Coordinate Retiree Health Benefits with Medicare Benefits
Affirmed
In 2003 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued proposed
rules that would have excluded from the prohibitions of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (ADEA) the practice of reducing or eliminating employer-sponsored
retiree health benefits when retirees become eligible for benefits under Medicare
or a similar state-sponsored program. The EEOC sought to allow this practice
in an effort to fight a trend toward termination of retiree medical plans due
to mounting costs. Before the proposed rules could take effect, however, the
American Association of Retired People (AARP) obtained an injunction preventing
implementation. On June 4, 2007, the Third Circuit upheld the EEOC's authority
to issue the rules and vacated the injunction, holding that the proposed exemption
was consistent with the purposes and intent of the ADEA and properly encouraged
employers to provide the greatest possible health benefits to all retirees.
The Third Circuit's decision allows the EEOC to finalize the 2003 proposed rules.
AARP has indicated that it will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the Third Circuit's decision eliminated a split in the Circuits
and allows plan sponsors to adopt or maintain retiree healthcare programs that
coordinate with Medicare. This decision is especially important to employers
who wish to coordinate prescription drug coverage for retirees with Medicare
Part D. Companies may now opt to provide Medicare-eligible retirees with reduced
healthcare or prescription drug benefit coverage.
Court Finds Cash Balance Plans Do Not Violate ERISA's Age Discrimination
Provision
Joining the Third and Seventh Circuits, on August 27, 2007, the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals held in Drutis v. Rand McNally & Co.,
2007 WL 2409762 (6th Cir. 2007), that defined benefit plans employing a cash
balance formula do not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
A cash balance plan is a defined benefit plan in that it is required to offer
payment of an employee's benefit in the form of a series of payments for life.
However, a cash balance plan is like a defined contribution plan in that it
defines the benefit in terms of a stated account balance.
A prior decision of the Third Circuit offered explanation as to how cash
balance plans operate:
A feature of most cash balance plans is that the hypothetical account, which
tells the employee how much the retirement benefit is worth, has two parts:
(1) "pay credits" or "earnings credits", which are hypothetical contributions
an employer usually expressed as a percentage of wages and salary and may
vary with employee tenure; and (2) "interest credits", which are hypothetical
earnings… on the account balance. Employers design cash balance plans so
that when a participant receives a pay or earnings credit for a year of
service, he also receives the right to future interest credits projected
out until normal retirement age.
Register v. PNC Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., 477
F.3d 56 (3d Cir. 2007).
The Sixth Circuit rejected the argument that cash balance plans are discriminatory
because younger workers who receive the same pay credit and interest rate contribution
as older workers would be entitled to a greater annuity at retirement. The Sixth
Circuit, however, like the Third and Seventh Circuits, held that so long as
the rate of benefit accrual, i.e., the employer's contributions, is not discriminatory
on the basis of age (i.e., "any difference in output as a result of time and
compound interest does not violate ERISA"), the plan is lawful.
All three appellate courts that have now considered these claims have ruled
that cash balance plans do not violate ERISA; appeals remain pending in the
Second and Ninth Circuits.
EEOC Amends ADEA Regulations To Reflect General
Dynamics v. Cline
On July 6, 2007, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued
amended regulations interpreting the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
to reflect the Supreme Court's 2004 ruling in General
Dynamics Land System, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004). In Cline, the Supreme Court held that employers
can make employment decisions that favor older employees over younger employees
covered by the Act (i.e., over 40 years of age). It had been the EEOC's position
that employers could not favor older workers over younger covered ones. The
EEOC has now deleted the language from its regulations barring discrimination
against "relatively" young individuals. The revisions clarify that employment
practices that favor older individuals at the expense of younger individuals
are not unlawful discrimination under the ADEA.
The amended regulations retain language prohibiting employers from including
language in "help wanted" notices or advertisements which would deter older
individuals from applying for employment. The amended regulations also retain
language that allows employers to place help wanted notices or advertisements
that express a preference for older workers by using such terms as "over age
60," "retirees," or "supplement your pension."
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles
and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other
professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney,
accountant, or other qualified adviser.