kentucky
retirement
systems
et
al
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
argued
january
decided
june
kentucky
permits
hazardous
position
workers
policemen
receive
normal
retirement
benefits
working
either
years
years
attaining
age
pays
disability
retirement
benefits
workers
meeting
specified
requirements
kentucky
plan
calculates
normal
retirement
benefits
based
actual
years
service
plan
calculates
disability
benefits
adding
employee
actual
years
service
number
years
employee
continue
working
order
become
eligible
normal
retirement
benefits
adding
number
years
employee
previously
worked
charles
lickteig
continued
working
becoming
eligible
retirement
age
became
disabled
retired
age
filed
age
discrimination
complaint
respondent
eeoc
plan
based
pension
actual
years
service
without
imputing
additional
years
eeoc
filed
suit
kentucky
others
collectively
kentucky
arguing
plan
failed
impute
years
solely
lickteig
became
disabled
age
district
granted
kentucky
summary
judgment
holding
eeoc
establish
age
discrimination
sixth
circuit
ultimately
reversed
ground
plan
violated
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
held
kentucky
system
discriminate
workers
become
disabled
becoming
eligible
retirement
based
age
pp
adea
forbids
employer
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
age
emphasis
added
plaintiff
claiming
disparate
treatment
intentional
discrimination
must
prove
age
actually
motivated
employer
decision
hazen
paper
biggins
emphasis
added
hazen
paper
found
without
evidence
intent
dismissal
based
pension
status
dismissal
age
noting
though
pension
status
depended
upon
years
service
years
service
typically
go
hand
hand
age
two
concepts
analytically
distinct
dismissal
issue
based
purely
pension
status
embody
evils
prompting
adea
based
prohibited
stereotype
older
workers
produce
attendant
stigma
workers
result
inaccurate
denigrating
generalization
age
however
noted
discrimination
based
pension
status
violate
adea
pension
status
proxy
age
pp
applying
hazen
paper
circumstances
taken
together
show
differences
treatment
particular
instance
actually
motivated
age
age
pension
status
remain
analytically
distinct
concepts
several
background
circumstances
eliminate
possibility
pension
status
serves
proxy
age
rather
individual
employment
decision
issue
complex
systemwide
rules
involving
wages
pensions
benefit
adea
treats
somewhat
flexibly
leniently
respect
age
congress
otherwise
approved
programs
social
security
disability
insurance
calculate
disability
benefits
using
formula
expressly
takes
account
age
disparity
clear
rationale
plan
disability
rules
track
kentucky
normal
retirement
rules
imputing
additional
years
service
needed
bring
disabled
worker
total
number
years
individual
worked
worked
age
thus
disability
rules
purpose
treat
disabled
worker
though
become
disabled
rather
become
eligible
normal
retirement
benefits
age
factors
disability
calculation
normal
retirement
rules
permissibly
consider
age
plan
simply
seeks
treat
disabled
employees
worked
point
eligible
normal
pension
thus
disparity
turns
upon
pension
eligibility
nothing
although
plan
placed
older
worker
disadvantage
cases
rules
work
advantage
older
workers
may
get
bigger
boost
imputed
years
younger
workers
kentucky
system
rely
sorts
stereotypical
assumptions
work
capacity
older
workers
relative
younger
workers
adea
sought
eradicate
plan
assumptions
disabled
worker
continued
work
beyond
point
disabled
pension
eligible
involve
stereotypes
apply
equally
workers
regardless
age
nature
plan
eligibility
requirements
means
unless
kentucky
severely
cut
benefits
disabled
workers
yet
pension
eligible
increase
benefits
available
disabled
workers
lacking
clear
criteria
determining
many
extra
years
impute
already
older
difficulty
finding
remedy
correct
disparity
achieve
plan
legitimate
objective
providing
disabled
worker
sufficient
retirement
benefit
suggests
objective
age
actually
motivated
plan
opinion
way
unsettles
rule
statute
policy
facially
discriminates
based
age
suffices
show
disparate
treatment
adea
dealing
quite
special
case
differential
treatment
based
pension
status
pension
status
explicit
blessing
adea
turns
part
age
rule
dealing
sort
case
clear
employer
adopts
pension
plan
includes
age
factor
employer
treats
employees
differently
based
pension
status
plaintiff
state
claim
adea
must
adduce
sufficient
evidence
show
differential
treatment
actually
motivated
age
pension
status
pp
federal
government
additional
arguments
rejected
since
hazen
paper
provides
relevant
precedent
adea
amendment
made
light
public
employees
retirement
system
ohio
betts
beside
point
contrary
interpretation
contained
eeoc
regulation
compliance
manual
lead
different
conclusion
pp
reversed
breyer
delivered
opinion
roberts
stevens
souter
thomas
joined
kennedy
filed
dissenting
opinion
scalia
ginsburg
alito
joined
kentucky
retirement
systems
et
petitioners
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
writ
certiorari
appeals
sixth
circuit
june
justice
breyer
delivered
opinion
commonwealth
kentucky
permits
policemen
firemen
hazardous
position
workers
retire
receive
normal
retirement
benefits
either
working
years
working
years
attaining
age
see
rev
stat
ann
lexis
lexis
supp
permits
become
seriously
disabled
otherwise
become
eligible
retirement
retire
immediately
receive
disability
retirement
benefits
see
lexis
treats
disabled
individuals
generously
treats
became
disabled
becoming
eligible
retirement
basis
age
question
us
whether
kentucky
system
consequently
discriminates
latter
workers
age
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
act
stat
conclude
kentucky
put
place
special
retirement
plan
plan
state
county
employees
occupy
azardous
position
active
duty
law
enforcement
officers
firefighters
paramedics
workers
correctional
systems
see
rev
stat
ann
lexis
supp
plan
sets
forth
two
routes
employee
become
eligible
called
normal
retirement
benefits
first
makes
employee
eligible
retirement
years
service
second
makes
employee
eligible
years
service
provided
employee
attained
age
see
employee
eligible
either
route
receive
pension
calculated
way
kentucky
multiplies
years
service
times
times
final
preretirement
pay
see
kentucky
plan
special
provisions
hazardous
position
workers
become
disabled
yet
eligible
normal
retirement
employee
worked
five
years
became
disabled
line
duty
employee
retire
see
lexis
calculating
employee
benefits
kentucky
add
certain
number
imputed
years
employee
actual
years
service
number
imputed
years
equals
number
years
disabled
employee
continue
working
order
become
eligible
normal
retirement
benefits
years
necessary
bring
employee
years
service
least
years
service
employee
turn
whichever
number
years
lower
see
lexis
thus
employee
years
service
becomes
disabled
age
plan
adds
years
calculates
benefits
employee
completed
years
service
employee
years
service
becomes
disabled
age
plan
adds
year
calculates
benefits
employee
retired
age
years
service
plan
also
imposes
ceiling
imputed
years
equal
number
years
employee
previously
worked
employee
worked
eight
years
receive
eight
additional
imputed
years
see
provides
certain
minimum
payment
see
lexis
contains
various
details
none
challenged
charles
lickteig
hazardous
position
worker
jefferson
county
sheriff
department
became
eligible
retirement
age
continued
work
became
disabled
retired
age
plan
calculated
annual
pension
basis
actual
years
service
years
times
times
final
annual
pay
lickteig
became
disabled
already
become
eligible
normal
retirement
benefits
plan
impute
additional
years
purposes
calculation
lickteig
complained
age
discrimination
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
eeoc
brought
age
discrimination
lawsuit
commonwealth
kentucky
kentucky
plan
administrator
state
entities
shall
refer
collectively
kentucky
eeoc
pointed
lickteig
become
disabled
reached
age
plan
calculating
lickteig
benefits
imputed
number
additional
years
eeoc
argued
plan
failed
impute
years
solely
lickteig
became
disabled
reached
age
district
making
appropriate
assumptions
eeoc
favor
see
fed
rule
civ
proc
held
eeoc
establish
age
discrimination
granted
summary
judgment
defendants
favor
panel
sixth
circuit
affirmed
judgment
eeoc
jefferson
cty
sheriff
sixth
circuit
granted
rehearing
en
banc
held
kentucky
plan
violate
adea
reversed
remanded
proceedings
kentucky
sought
certiorari
light
potentially
serious
impact
circuit
decision
upon
pension
benefits
provided
plans
effect
many
granted
writ
see
ind
code
west
comp
laws
ann
west
stat
ann
lexis
stat
tit
purdon
supp
code
ann
supp
see
also
reply
brief
petitioners
predicting
inter
alia
large
increase
pension
liabilities
potential
reduction
benefits
disabled
persons
brief
national
association
state
retirement
administrators
et
al
amici
curiae
ii
adea
forbids
employer
fail
refuse
hire
discharge
individual
otherwise
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
age
emphasis
added
hazen
paper
biggins
explained
plaintiff
claims
disparate
treatment
intentional
discrimination
age
plaintiff
must
prove
age
actually
motivated
employer
decision
emphasis
added
see
also
reeves
sanderson
plumbing
products
noted
employer
may
relied
upon
formal
facially
discriminatory
policy
requiring
adverse
treatment
age
employer
may
motivated
age
ad
hoc
informal
basis
hazen
paper
hatever
employer
decisionmaking
process
plaintiff
alleging
disparate
treatment
succeed
unless
employee
age
actually
played
role
process
determinative
influence
outcome
ibid
emphasis
added
cf
smith
city
jackson
plurality
opinion
describing
theory
issue
focuses
upon
unjustified
discriminatory
results
hazen
paper
considered
disparate
treatment
claim
employer
unlawfully
dismissed
employee
years
service
order
avoid
paying
pension
benefits
vested
years
held
without
evidence
intent
adea
forbid
dismissal
claim
dismissal
based
pension
status
dismissal
age
course
pension
status
depended
upon
years
service
years
service
typically
go
hand
hand
age
two
concepts
nonetheless
analytically
distinct
ibid
employer
easily
take
account
one
ignoring
ibid
dismissal
question
based
purely
upon
pension
status
related
years
service
embody
evils
led
congress
enact
adea
first
place
dismissal
based
prohibited
stereotype
older
workers
produce
attendant
stigma
workers
result
inaccurate
denigrating
generalization
age
time
hazen
paper
indicated
discrimination
basis
pension
status
sometimes
unlawful
adea
particular
pension
status
served
proxy
age
suppose
example
employer
target
ed
employees
particular
pension
status
assumption
employees
likely
older
case
hazen
paper
suggested
age
pension
status
actually
motivated
employer
decisionmaking
hazen
paper
also
left
open
special
case
employee
vest
pension
benefits
result
age
rather
years
service
consider
variation
special
case
theme
iii
kentucky
plan
turns
normal
pension
eligibility
either
upon
employee
attained
years
service
alone
upon
employees
attained
years
service
reached
age
adea
permits
employer
condition
pension
eligibility
upon
age
see
supp
thus
must
decide
whether
plan
lawfully
makes
age
part
condition
pension
eligibility
treats
workers
differently
light
pension
status
automatically
discriminates
age
government
argues
yes
following
hazen
paper
approach
come
different
conclusion
particular
following
circumstances
taken
together
convince
us
particular
instance
differences
treatment
actually
motivated
age
first
matter
pure
logic
age
pension
status
remain
analytically
distinct
concepts
hazen
paper
say
one
easily
conceive
decisions
actually
made
pension
status
age
even
pension
status
based
age
suppose
example
employer
pays
retired
workers
pension
retirement
eligibility
turns
age
say
worker
retires
nothing
language
logic
prevents
one
concluding
employer
begun
pay
worker
pension
worker
simply
worker
retired
second
several
background
circumstances
eliminate
possibility
pension
status
though
analytically
distinct
age
nonetheless
serves
proxy
age
kentucky
plan
cf
consider
individual
employment
decision
set
complex
systemwide
rules
systemic
rules
involve
wages
pensions
benefit
adea
treats
somewhat
flexibly
leniently
respect
age
see
supp
explicitly
allowing
pension
eligibility
turn
age
allowing
employer
consider
pension
benefits
determining
level
severance
pay
allowing
employer
consider
pension
benefits
determining
level
disability
benefits
specific
benefit
issue
offered
hazardous
position
workers
nondiscriminatory
terms
ex
ante
say
every
employee
hired
promised
disability
retirement
benefits
become
disabled
prior
time
eligible
normal
retirement
benefits
furthermore
congress
otherwise
approved
programs
calculate
permanent
disability
benefits
using
formula
expressly
takes
account
age
example
social
security
administration
uses
formula
calculating
social
security
disability
insurance
benefits
see
iii
cfr
cases
federal
employees
received
permanent
disability
benefits
based
formula
certain
circumstances
consider
age
effectively
imputed
years
service
disabled
workers
younger
see
ed
see
also
office
personnel
management
disability
retirement
civil
service
retirement
system
retirement
facts
rev
line
http
visited
june
available
clerk
case
file
third
clear
rationale
disparity
issue
manner
kentucky
calculates
disability
retirement
benefits
every
important
respect
one
identical
manner
kentucky
calculates
normal
retirement
benefits
one
significant
difference
consists
fact
plan
imputes
additional
years
service
disabled
individuals
plan
imputes
years
needed
bring
disabled
worker
years
service
number
years
individual
worked
worked
age
disability
rules
clearly
track
kentucky
normal
retirement
rules
obvious
whole
purpose
disability
rules
kentucky
claims
treat
disabled
worker
though
become
disabled
rather
become
eligible
normal
retirement
benefits
age
factors
disability
calculation
normal
retirement
rules
permissibly
include
age
consideration
one
seeking
help
disabled
workers
way
kentucky
rules
seek
help
workers
care
whether
kentucky
normal
system
turned
eligibility
part
upon
age
upon
different
criteria
suggested
fact
one
readily
construct
plan
produces
identical
disparity
age
neutral
suppose
kentucky
plan
made
eligible
pension
workers
years
service
workers
years
service
suppose
plan
calculates
amount
pension
way
either
case
method
calculation
depends
solely
upon
years
service
say
giving
worker
pension
equal
year
service
plan
provide
workers
become
disabled
prior
pension
eligibility
pension
workers
received
worked
became
pension
eligible
plan
create
disparity
disabled
workers
worker
becomes
disabled
becoming
pension
eligible
many
instances
end
receiving
bigger
pension
worker
becomes
disabled
becoming
pension
eligible
example
worker
becomes
disabled
prior
becoming
receive
annual
pension
worker
becomes
disabled
becoming
say
years
service
receive
annual
pension
disparity
example
actually
motivated
bias
workers
rather
disparity
like
disparity
case
us
simply
artifact
plan
rules
treat
one
set
workers
generously
respect
timing
eligibility
normal
retirement
benefits
treat
generously
respect
calculation
amount
normal
retirement
benefits
example
helps
show
plan
issue
case
simply
seeks
treat
disabled
employees
worked
point
eligible
normal
pension
disparity
turns
upon
pension
eligibility
nothing
fourth
although
kentucky
plan
placed
older
worker
disadvantage
case
cases
work
advantage
older
workers
consider
example
two
disabled
workers
one
aged
years
service
one
aged
years
service
kentucky
scheme
older
worker
actually
get
bigger
boost
imputed
years
younger
worker
years
imputed
former
years
imputed
latter
fact
helps
confirm
underlying
motive
effort
discriminate
age
fifth
kentucky
system
rely
sorts
stereotypical
assumptions
adea
sought
eradicate
rest
stereotype
work
capacity
older
workers
relative
younger
workers
see
general
dynamics
land
systems
cline
noting
except
one
point
findings
statements
objectives
adea
either
cast
terms
effects
age
intensifying
time
couched
terms
refer
workers
explicitly
implicitly
relative
ones
emphasis
added
plan
assume
disabled
workers
worked
point
become
eligible
pension
also
assumes
disabled
worker
continued
working
beyond
point
disabled
pension
eligible
assumptions
involve
stereotypes
apply
equally
workers
regardless
age
sixth
nature
plan
eligibility
requirements
means
unless
kentucky
severely
cut
benefits
given
disabled
workers
yet
pension
eligible
kentucky
claims
present
plan
unlawful
kentucky
increase
benefits
available
disabled
workers
lacking
clear
criteria
determining
many
extra
years
impute
workers
already
older
difficulty
finding
remedy
correct
disparity
achieve
plan
legitimate
objective
providing
disabled
worker
sufficient
retirement
benefit
namely
normal
retirement
benefit
worker
receive
pension
eligible
time
disability
suggests
objective
age
actually
motivated
plan
factors
taken
together
convince
us
plan
face
create
treatment
differences
actually
motivated
age
present
purposes
accept
district
finding
government
pointed
additional
evidence
might
permit
factfinder
reach
contrary
conclusion
see
app
bears
emphasizing
opinion
way
unsettles
rule
statute
policy
facially
discriminates
based
age
suffices
show
disparate
treatment
adea
dealing
today
quite
special
case
differential
treatment
based
pension
status
pension
status
explicit
blessing
adea
turns
part
age
rule
adopt
today
dealing
sort
case
clear
employer
adopts
pension
plan
includes
age
factor
employer
treats
employees
differently
based
pension
status
plaintiff
state
disparate
treatment
claim
adea
must
adduce
sufficient
evidence
show
differential
treatment
actually
motivated
age
pension
status
discussion
factors
lead
us
conclude
government
failed
make
requisite
showing
case
provides
indication
plaintiff
might
show
cases
meet
burden
proving
differential
treatment
based
pension
status
fact
discrimination
age
iv
government
makes
two
additional
arguments
first
looks
support
amendment
congress
made
adea
decision
public
employees
retirement
system
ohio
betts
betts
employer
denied
worker
disability
benefits
ground
bona
fide
benefit
program
provided
disability
benefits
workers
became
disabled
prior
age
worker
case
became
disabled
age
adea
time
exempted
prohibitions
employment
decisions
taken
pursuant
terms
bona
fide
employee
benefit
plan
subterfuge
evade
purposes
act
quoting
supp
held
employer
decision
fell
within
exception
subsequently
congress
amended
adea
make
clear
covered
discrimination
respect
employee
benefits
see
older
workers
benefit
protection
act
stat
congress
replaced
subterfuge
exception
provision
stating
disparities
provision
benefits
lawful
justified
respect
cost
savings
agree
government
amendment
broadened
field
employer
actions
subject
antidiscrimination
rules
narrowed
statutorily
available
justifications
differences
facts
help
government
dispute
adea
prohibitions
apply
plan
issue
basis
finding
plan
lawful
rest
upon
justifications
rather
find
discrimination
actually
motivated
age
thus
hazen
paper
betts
provides
relevant
precedent
amendment
cited
government
beside
point
second
government
says
must
defer
contrary
eeoc
interpretation
contained
eeoc
regulation
compliance
manual
regulation
however
says
providing
level
benefits
older
workers
younger
workers
violate
act
cfr
government
interpretation
language
entitled
deference
face
regulation
little
restate
terms
statute
gonzales
oregon
denying
deference
agency
interpretation
regulation
light
near
equivalence
statute
regulation
compliance
manual
provides
explicitly
benefits
equal
insofar
plan
reduces
eliminates
benefits
based
criterion
explicitly
defined
whole
part
age
eeoc
compliance
manual
bold
typeface
deleted
compliance
manual
provides
asing
disability
retirement
benefits
number
years
disabled
employee
worked
normal
retirement
age
definition
gives
constructive
years
service
younger
older
employees
thus
violates
act
see
statements
important
lead
us
different
conclusion
see
national
railroad
passenger
corporation
morgan
noting
compliance
manuals
entitled
respect
decision
skidmore
swift
see
also
christensen
harris
county
following
hazen
paper
interpret
act
requiring
showing
discrimination
issue
actually
motivated
employer
decision
given
reasons
set
forth
part
iii
supra
conclude
evidence
motivation
lacking
eeoc
statement
compliance
manual
automatically
reaches
contrary
conclusion
statement
manual
makes
little
effort
justify
lacks
necessary
power
persuade
us
skidmore
swift
judgment
appeals
reversed
ordered
kentucky
retirement
systems
et
petitioners
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
writ
certiorari
appeals
sixth
circuit
june
justice
kennedy
justice
scalia
justice
ginsburg
justice
alito
join
dissenting
today
ignores
established
rules
interpreting
enforcing
one
important
statutes
congress
enacted
protect
nation
work
force
age
discrimination
age
discrimination
employment
act
adea
act
stat
amended
et
seq
act
prohibits
employment
actions
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
age
recent
years
employers
employees
alike
advised
courts
appeals
agency
charged
enforcing
act
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
straightforward
reading
statute
correct
one
employer
makes
age
factor
employee
benefit
plan
formal
facial
deliberate
explicit
manner
detriment
older
employees
violation
act
disparate
treatment
basis
age
prohibited
unless
exemption
defense
provided
act
applies
today
undercuts
basic
framework
puts
act
enforcement
wrong
course
decision
en
banc
panel
appeals
sixth
circuit
reverses
brought
circuit
case
law
line
sister
circuits
see
eeoc
jefferson
cty
sheriff
overturning
lyon
ohio
ed
assn
professional
staff
union
see
also
jankovitz
des
moines
independent
community
school
abrahamson
board
ed
wappingers
falls
century
school
arnett
california
public
employees
retirement
system
auerbach
board
ed
harborfields
central
school
dist
greenlawn
huff
uarco
embracing
approach
rejected
en
banc
panel
courts
appeals
addressed
issue
creates
unevenness
administration
unpredictability
litigation
uncertainty
employee
rights
thought
well
settled
consequences
errors
interpreting
statute
cases
require
respectful
dissent
even
correct
kentucky
facially
discriminatory
disability
benefits
plan
justified
proper
motive
employer
submission
us
reveals
plan
discriminatory
classification
rests
upon
stereotypical
assumption
violates
act
analytical
framework
threshold
matter
concede
paradigm
offered
justify
statute
powerful
one
young
police
officer
firefighter
family
disabled
heroic
performance
duty
disability
payments
increased
account
unworked
years
service
overlooks
however
officer
firefighter
disabled
heroic
action
receives
many
instances
lower
payment
one
reason
alone
explicit
command
kentucky
disability
plan
age
express
disadvantage
calculating
disability
payment
straightforward
act
discrimination
basis
age
though
commonwealth
entitled
law
instances
defend
differential
cost
justified
ii
yet
established
employer
pretend
explicit
discrimination
based
age
somehow
consistent
broad
statutory
regulatory
prohibition
disparate
treatment
based
age
following
appears
common
ground
sides
dispute
kentucky
operates
dual
retirement
systems
employees
hazardous
occupations
employee
eligible
normal
retirement
accumulated
years
service
commonwealth
age
accumulated
least
years
service
employee
longer
work
result
disability
however
entitled
receive
disability
retirement
employees
eligible
normal
retirement
benefits
ineligible
disability
retirement
see
rev
stat
ann
lexis
lexis
cum
supp
distinction
normal
disability
retirement
difference
nomenclature
normal
retirement
system
benefits
calculated
multiplying
percentage
employee
pay
retirement
years
service
see
lexis
disability
system
multiplier
includes
employee
actual
years
service
also
number
years
taken
employee
become
eligible
normal
retirement
subject
cap
equal
number
actual
years
served
see
words
employees
normal
retirement
system
compensated
based
solely
actual
years
service
employees
disability
retirement
system
get
bonus
accounts
number
years
employee
worked
remained
healthy
becoming
eligible
receive
normal
retirement
benefits
whether
intended
result
divergent
benefits
formulae
system
cases
compensates
otherwise
similarly
situated
individuals
differently
basis
age
consider
two
covered
workers
one
one
five
years
service
commonwealth
annual
salary
assume
become
disabled
accident
entitled
receive
monthly
benefits
receive
half
much
benefit
disparity
results
commonwealth
decision
disability
retirement
formula
credit
years
unworked
service
thereby
increasing
appliable
years
benefits
based
actual
years
service
years
instance
age
factor
accounts
disparate
treatment
true
age
factor
reduces
benefits
every
case
worker
accumulated
years
service
commonwealth
becomes
disabled
age
plays
role
benefits
calculation
question
many
cases
disabled
worker
age
accumulated
fewer
years
service
receives
lower
monthly
stipend
otherwise
similarly
situated
workers
concludes
result
something
discrimination
basis
age
ignoring
statute
past
opinions
ii
difficult
find
clear
rule
law
list
policy
arguments
makes
justify
holding
difficulty
compounded
analysis
concedes
case
kentucky
plan
placed
older
worker
disadvantage
ante
yet
proceeds
hold
commonwealth
disparate
treatment
workers
motivated
age
ante
apparent
rationale
even
evident
benefits
plan
discriminates
face
basis
age
adea
plaintiff
still
must
provide
additional
evidence
employer
acted
underlying
motive
ante
treat
older
workers
less
favorably
younger
workers
finds
support
text
statute
wake
public
employees
retirement
system
ohio
betts
held
bona
fide
employee
benefit
plans
exempt
coverage
adea
congress
amended
act
provide
employee
benefit
plan
discriminates
basis
age
unlawful
except
employer
establishes
entitlement
one
affirmative
defenses
congress
provided
see
older
workers
benefit
protection
act
owbpa
stat
codified
result
owbpa
employer
operate
employee
benefit
plan
manner
discriminate
individual
individual
age
except
plan
voluntary
early
retirement
incentive
plan
actual
amount
payment
made
cost
incurred
behalf
older
worker
less
made
incurred
behalf
younger
worker
ii
see
generally
lindemann
kadue
age
discrimination
employment
law
common
understanding
statute
terms
disability
plan
pays
older
workers
less
younger
workers
basis
age
discriminate
age
agency
administers
statute
eeoc
understands
see
eeoc
compliance
manual
enefits
equal
plan
reduces
eliminates
benefits
based
criterion
explicitly
defined
whole
part
age
employer
shown
affirmative
defenses
exemptions
act
applies
end
matter
employer
liable
unless
make
showing
holding
stems
asserts
statement
hazen
paper
biggins
employment
practice
discriminates
protected
trait
ante
quoting
hazen
paper
emphasis
deleted
phrase
used
without
qualification
interpretation
might
justified
one
reads
relevant
passage
full
particular
emphasis
second
sentence
however
hazen
paper
makes
quite
clear
additional
proof
motive
required
adea
case
employment
policy
issue
deemed
discriminatory
face
said
disparate
treatment
case
liability
depends
whether
protected
trait
adea
age
actually
motivated
employer
decision
see
postal
service
bd
governors
aikens
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
furnco
constr
waters
employer
may
relied
upon
formal
facially
discriminatory
policy
requiring
adverse
treatment
employees
trait
see
trans
world
airlines
thurston
los
angeles
dept
water
power
manhart
employer
may
motivated
protected
trait
ad
hoc
informal
basis
see
anderson
bessemer
city
teamsters
whatever
employer
decisionmaking
process
disparate
treatment
claim
succeed
unless
employee
protected
trait
actually
played
role
process
determinative
influence
outcome
ibid
context
paragraph
identifies
decision
made
reliance
facially
discriminatory
policy
requiring
adverse
treatment
employees
protected
trait
type
employment
action
actually
motivated
trait
interpreting
hazen
paper
say
formal
facial
explicit
mandated
differential
suffice
establish
violation
subject
statutory
defenses
exemptions
misconstrues
precedent
upon
entire
theory
case
built
right
hazen
paper
wrong
minimum
cite
hazen
paper
support
holds
conclusion
violation
established
conflicts
longstanding
rule
adea
cases
rule
confirmed
quoted
text
hazen
paper
plaintiff
establishes
policy
discriminates
face
additional
proof
motive
challenged
employment
action
required
plan
discriminates
face
obvious
decisions
made
pursuant
plan
actually
motivated
age
eeoc
employee
must
prevail
unless
employer
justify
action
one
enumerated
statutory
defenses
exemptions
two
cases
cited
hazen
paper
examples
formal
facially
discriminatory
polic
ies
stand
proposition
see
trans
world
airlines
thurston
los
angeles
dept
water
power
manhart
thurston
considered
whether
trans
world
airlines
transfer
policy
older
pilots
violated
adea
policy
allowed
pilots
continue
working
airline
past
mandatory
retirement
age
transferred
position
flight
engineer
pilot
bid
position
bid
procedures
pilot
became
ineligible
remain
controls
account
disability
even
outright
incompetence
priority
pilot
forced
due
age
held
framework
mcdonnell
douglas
green
used
determine
whether
discriminatory
motive
play
application
policy
discriminatory
face
manhart
title
vii
case
involved
municipal
employees
retirement
plan
forced
female
employees
make
larger
contributions
male
counterparts
noted
even
evidence
policy
discriminatory
effect
evidence
defeat
claim
practice
face
discriminated
every
individual
woman
employed
department
majority
misunderstands
hazen
paper
reference
employment
practices
actually
motivated
age
overstate
hazen
paper
meant
observed
pension
status
age
analytically
distinct
reads
language
creating
virtual
safe
harbor
policies
discriminate
basis
pension
status
even
pension
status
tied
directly
age
linked
another
type
benefit
program
hazen
paper
allow
support
result
hazen
paper
pension
status
age
analytically
distinct
employee
eligibility
receive
pension
formally
nothing
age
pension
status
tied
solely
years
service
recognized
age
pension
status
correlated
older
workers
likely
pension
eligible
found
plan
facially
neutral
regard
age
precisely
age
pension
status
expressly
linked
terms
plan
see
noting
consider
special
case
employee
vest
pension
benefits
result
age
rather
years
service
order
prove
liability
hazen
paper
held
plaintiff
needed
provide
additional
evidence
termination
fact
motivated
age
saving
feature
controlling
hazen
paper
absent
case
opposite
hazen
paper
age
distinction
active
present
superseded
absent
age
determining
factor
pension
eligibility
workers
age
less
years
service
pension
status
turn
used
determine
eligibility
disability
benefits
employees
pension
status
age
analytically
distinct
meaningful
sense
merge
one
category
treats
employees
differently
basis
pension
eligibility
kentucky
facially
discriminates
basis
age
case
facial
age
discrimination
employer
divided
employees
two
teams
based
upon
age
putting
workers
age
team
workers
team
paid
team
members
twice
salary
team
counterparts
basis
age
employer
declare
team
designation
neither
hazen
paper
plain
text
adea
read
permit
result
closest
comes
reconciling
holding
actual
text
statute
citation
act
exemption
allowing
employers
condition
pension
eligibility
age
ante
course
fact
invokes
exemption
concession
act
otherwise
condemn
classification
kentucky
disability
plan
makes
exemption
provides
support
holding
event
coverage
limited
employee
pension
benefit
plan
provid
attainment
minimum
age
condition
eligibility
normal
early
retirement
benefits
see
supp
farther
reaching
exemption
subsequent
employment
decisions
based
upon
pension
eligibility
extent
finds
loophole
implicit
text
statute
disability
benefits
program
sort
issue
type
employment
policy
fits
adea
allows
employer
tie
disability
benefits
pension
status
designation
designation
used
determine
wages
hours
heath
care
benefits
reimbursements
job
assignments
promotions
office
space
transportation
vouchers
parking
privileges
conceivable
benefit
condition
employment
iii
recognizes
difficulties
position
seeks
limit
holding
yet
ways
permitted
statute
previous
employment
discrimination
cases
notes
age
sole
determining
factor
pension
eligibility
instead
one
factor
embedded
set
complex
rules
ante
suggestion
prior
adea
cases
however
certainly
none
related
title
vii
jurisprudence
discrimination
based
protected
trait
permissible
protected
trait
one
among
many
variables
quite
evident
protected
trait
necessarily
controlling
factor
calculating
employee
benefits
manhart
instance
sex
factor
determining
much
employee
required
contribute
pension
plan
monthly
basis
employee
salary
age
length
service
also
variables
equation
brief
petitioners
los
angeles
dept
water
power
manhart
even
though
employer
decision
require
higher
contributions
female
employees
based
upon
actuarially
sound
premise
women
longer
life
expectancies
men
held
plan
discriminated
face
similarly
said
adea
substantive
prohibitions
derived
haec
verba
title
vii
lorillard
pons
require
employer
ignore
employee
age
absent
statutory
exemption
defense
hazen
paper
statement
perhaps
qualified
subsequent
holding
general
dynamics
land
systems
cline
adea
forbid
employers
discriminating
favor
older
workers
detriment
younger
workers
reasonable
minds
may
disagreed
merits
cline
holding
see
scalia
dissenting
see
also
thomas
dissenting
cline
dictate
path
chooses
one
thing
interpret
statute
designed
combat
age
discrimination
way
benefits
older
workers
detriment
younger
workers
quite
another
case
interpret
adea
allow
discriminatory
employment
practice
disfavors
older
workers
favoring
younger
ones
moreover
achieved
result
cline
reading
word
age
mean
old
age
reading
discriminat
ion
individual
age
mean
discrimination
individual
advanced
age
see
cline
supra
seems
adopt
new
definition
term
discriminate
holding
discrimination
basis
protected
trait
trait
one
among
several
factors
bear
upon
employee
treated
principled
way
draw
distinction
attempt
cf
manhart
supra
reason
believe
congress
intended
special
definition
discrimination
context
employee
group
insurance
coverage
recites
sees
several
background
circumstances
eliminate
possibility
pension
status
though
analytically
distinct
age
nonetheless
serves
age
kentucky
plan
ante
among
clear
rationale
treat
disabled
worker
though
become
disabled
rather
become
eligible
normal
retirement
benefits
ante
difference
however
laudable
purpose
rule
law
otherwise
discriminatory
employment
action
rendered
lawful
employer
motives
benign
automobile
workers
johnson
controls
employer
policy
barring
female
employees
except
infertile
performing
jobs
exposed
lead
employer
said
policy
designed
reinforce
negative
gender
stereotypes
protect
female
employees
unborn
children
risk
birth
defects
argument
prevail
plan
discriminated
face
basis
sex
employer
establish
bona
fide
occupational
qualification
defense
result
held
restriction
violated
title
vii
absence
malevolent
motive
convert
facially
discriminatory
plan
neutral
policy
discriminatory
effect
still
even
cases
allowed
motive
qualification
puts
forth
justify
facial
operative
distinction
based
upon
age
plan
issue
survive
test
need
look
commonwealth
brief
evidence
motives
contrary
adea
brief
commonwealth
refers
complainant
case
charles
lickteig
follows
employee
lickteig
position
extra
years
devote
making
money
providing
family
saving
funds
retirement
accruing
years
increase
retirement
benefits
thus
employee
likely
need
boost
brief
petitioners
hypothetical
younger
worker
seems
entitled
boost
one
accepts
younger
worker
productive
years
work
left
time
injury
lickteig
actuarial
matter
assumption
may
sound
impermissible
basis
differential
treatment
adea
however
said
hazen
paper
idea
productivity
competence
decline
old
age
essence
age
discrimination
forbidding
age
discrimination
individual
adea
forbids
employers
using
blunt
tool
age
assess
employee
future
productivity
cf
western
air
lines
criswell
noting
labor
department
findings
process
psychological
physiological
degeneration
caused
aging
varies
individual
whether
good
public
policy
instances
might
debatable
congress
sees
fit
change
language
statute
however
principled
basis
upholding
kentucky
disability
benefits
formula
explained
dissent
kentucky
disability
retirement
plan
violates
adea
act
intended
promote
interests
older
americans
yet
small
irony
least
part
commonwealth
normal
retirement
plan
treats
older
workers
particularly
generous
fashion
kentucky
allows
employees
retire
age
accumulated
five
years
service
provision
links
age
years
service
way
benefits
older
workers
pension
eligibility
function
solely
tenure
age
accordingly
case
like
hazen
paper
eeoc
case
much
weaker
similarly
notes
ante
kentucky
avoid
problems
imputing
unworked
years
service
disabled
workers
old
young
alike
neither
change
plan
result
generous
treatment
older
workers
difference
first
example
older
workers
lose
option
early
retirement
second
younger
workers
see
benefits
cut
possible
remedies
commonwealth
impute
unworked
years
service
employees
forced
retirement
account
disability
regardless
age
desire
avoid
construing
adea
way
encourages
commonwealth
eliminate
early
retirement
program
reduce
benefits
policemen
firefighters
covered
disability
plan
understandable
precedents
benefit
part
parcel
employment
relationship
may
doled
discriminatory
fashion
even
employer
free
provide
benefit
thurston
quoting
hishon
king
spalding
kentucky
facially
discriminatory
plan
good
public
policy
answer
ignore
precedents
plain
text
statute
reasons
view
judgment
appeals
affirmed
case
remanded
determination
whether
state
assert
defense