los
angeles
dept
water
power
manhart
argued
january
decided
april
suit
filed
class
action
behalf
present
former
female
employees
petitioner
los
angeles
department
water
power
alleging
department
requirement
female
employees
make
larger
contributions
pension
fund
male
employees
violated
title
vii
civil
rights
act
inter
alia
makes
unlawful
employer
discriminate
individual
individual
sex
department
pension
plan
based
mortality
tables
experience
showing
female
employees
greater
longevity
male
employees
cost
pension
average
female
retiree
greater
average
male
retiree
monthly
payments
made
female
district
held
contribution
differential
violated
ordered
refund
excess
contributions
antedating
amendment
department
pension
plan
made
suit
pending
eliminated
sexual
distinctions
plan
contributions
benefits
appeals
affirmed
held
challenged
differential
department
former
pension
plan
violated
pp
differential
discriminatory
treatment
person
manner
person
sex
different
statute
focuses
fairness
individuals
rather
fairness
classes
precludes
treating
individuals
simply
components
group
sexual
class
even
though
true
women
class
outlive
men
generalization
justify
disqualifying
individual
apply
reason
moreover
believe
congress
intended
special
definition
discrimination
context
employee
group
insurance
since
context
common
considered
unfair
treat
different
classes
risks
though
pp
though
department
contends
different
contributions
exacted
men
women
based
factor
longevity
rather
sex
thus
constituted
statutory
exemption
authorized
differential
based
factor
sex
evidence
factor
employee
sex
accounted
differential
pp
case
readily
distinguishable
general
electric
gilbert
pension
plan
discriminates
basis
sex
whereas
plan
gilbert
discriminated
basis
special
physical
disability
pp
inappropriate
district
allow
retroactive
monetary
recovery
case
pp
though
presumption
favors
retroactive
relief
title
vii
violation
committed
albemarle
paper
moody
appropriateness
relief
individual
case
must
assessed
district
gave
insufficient
attention
equitable
nature
title
vii
remedies
first
litigation
challenging
pension
fund
contribution
differences
based
valid
actuarial
tables
fund
administrators
may
well
assumed
justified
differential
resulting
prohibition
employee
contributions
constituted
marked
departure
past
practice
pp
view
grave
consequences
drastic
changes
legal
rules
pension
funds
rules
given
retroactive
effect
unless
plainly
commanded
legislative
action
pp
stevens
delivered
opinion
stewart
white
powell
joined
part
iv
marshall
joined
part
iv
burger
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
blackmun
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
post
burger
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
rehnquist
joined
post
marshall
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
post
brennan
took
part
consideration
decision
case
david
oliphant
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
burt
pines
david
hanson
robert
dohrmann
argued
cause
respondents
brief
kenneth
schwartz
laurence
steinsapir
howard
knee
katherine
stoll
burns
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
james
redden
attorney
general
al
laue
solicitor
general
william
hoelscher
assistant
attorney
general
state
oregon
harry
du
brin
new
york
state
teachers
retirement
system
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
solicitor
general
mccree
assistant
attorney
general
days
deputy
solicitor
general
wallace
thomas
martin
brian
landsberg
cynthia
attwood
abner
sibal
joseph
eddins
beatrice
rosenberg
mautner
et
al
ruth
bader
ginsburg
marjorie
mazen
smith
matthew
finkin
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
michael
evan
gold
fred
okrand
aclu
foundation
southern
california
jonathan
harkavy
american
nurses
assn
marguerite
rawalt
margaret
young
association
women
mathematics
et
al
john
fillion
stephen
berzon
fred
altshuler
albert
woll
laurence
gold
international
union
automobile
aerospace
agricultural
implement
workers
america
et
al
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
bernard
richland
kevin
sheridan
city
new
york
edward
silver
larry
lavinsky
stephen
tisman
william
harman
american
council
life
insurance
lawrence
latto
society
actuaries
et
al
william
glendon
james
weidner
james
paul
teachers
insurance
annuity
association
america
et
al
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
class
women
live
longer
men
reason
los
angeles
department
water
power
required
female
employees
make
larger
contributions
pension
fund
male
employees
granted
certiorari
decide
whether
practice
discriminated
individual
female
employees
sex
violation
civil
rights
act
amended
many
years
department
administered
retirement
disability
programs
employees
upon
retirement
employee
eligible
monthly
retirement
benefit
computed
fraction
salary
multiplied
years
service
monthly
benefits
men
women
age
seniority
salary
equal
benefits
funded
entirely
contributions
employees
department
augmented
income
earned
contributions
private
insurance
company
involved
administration
payment
benefits
based
study
mortality
tables
experience
department
determined
female
employees
average
live
years
longer
male
employees
cost
pension
average
retired
female
greater
average
male
retiree
monthly
payments
must
made
average
woman
department
therefore
required
female
employees
make
monthly
contributions
fund
higher
contributions
required
comparable
male
employees
employee
contributions
withheld
paychecks
female
employee
took
home
less
pay
male
employee
earning
salary
since
effective
date
equal
employment
opportunity
act
department
employer
within
meaning
title
vii
civil
rights
act
see
supp
respondents
brought
suit
district
central
district
california
behalf
class
women
employed
formerly
employed
department
prayed
injunction
restitution
excess
contributions
action
pending
california
legislature
enacted
law
prohibiting
certain
municipal
agencies
requiring
female
employees
make
higher
pension
fund
contributions
males
department
therefore
amended
plan
effective
january
current
plan
draws
distinction
either
contributions
benefits
basis
sex
motion
summary
judgment
district
held
contribution
differential
violated
ordered
refund
excess
contributions
made
amendment
plan
appeals
ninth
circuit
affirmed
department
various
amici
curiae
contend
differential
pay
men
women
discrimination
within
meaning
offset
difference
value
pension
benefits
provided
two
classes
employees
differential
based
factor
sex
within
meaning
equal
pay
act
therefore
protected
bennett
amendment
rationale
general
electric
gilbert
requires
reversal
event
retroactive
monetary
recovery
unjustified
consider
contentions
turn
real
fictional
differences
women
men
true
average
man
taller
average
woman
true
average
woman
driver
accident
prone
average
man
civil
rights
act
enacted
employer
fashion
personnel
policies
basis
assumptions
differences
men
women
whether
assumptions
valid
well
recognized
employment
decisions
predicated
mere
stereotyped
impressions
characteristics
males
females
myths
purely
habitual
assumptions
woman
inability
perform
certain
kinds
work
longer
acceptable
reasons
refusing
employ
qualified
individuals
paying
less
case
however
involve
fictional
difference
men
women
involves
generalization
parties
accept
unquestionably
true
women
class
live
longer
men
department
treated
women
employees
differently
men
employees
two
classes
fact
different
equally
true
however
individuals
respective
classes
share
characteristic
differentiates
average
class
representatives
many
women
live
long
average
man
many
men
outlive
average
woman
question
therefore
whether
existence
nonexistence
discrimination
determined
comparison
class
characteristics
individual
characteristics
stereotyped
answer
question
may
answer
language
purpose
statute
command
statute
makes
unlawful
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
emphasis
added
statute
focus
individual
unambiguous
precludes
treatment
individuals
simply
components
racial
religious
sexual
national
class
height
required
job
tall
woman
may
refused
employment
merely
average
women
short
even
true
generalization
class
insufficient
reason
disqualifying
individual
generalization
apply
proposition
critical
importance
case
assurance
individual
woman
working
department
actually
fit
generalization
department
policy
based
many
individuals
live
long
average
man
working
individuals
received
smaller
paychecks
sex
receive
compensating
advantage
retire
true
course
contributions
collected
employees
department
know
individuals
predecease
average
woman
therefore
unless
women
class
assessed
extra
charge
subsidized
extent
class
male
employees
follows
according
department
fairness
class
male
employees
justifies
extra
assessment
female
employees
question
fairness
various
classes
affected
statute
essentially
matter
policy
legislature
address
congress
decided
classifications
based
sex
like
based
national
origin
race
unlawful
actuarial
studies
unquestionably
identify
differences
life
expectancy
based
race
national
origin
well
sex
statute
designed
make
race
irrelevant
employment
market
see
griggs
duke
power
reasonably
construed
permit
differential
based
racial
classification
even
statutory
language
less
clear
basic
policy
statute
requires
focus
fairness
individuals
rather
fairness
classes
practices
classify
employees
terms
religion
race
sex
tend
preserve
traditional
assumptions
groups
rather
thoughtful
scrutiny
individuals
generalization
involved
case
illustrates
point
separate
mortality
tables
easily
interpreted
reflecting
innate
differences
sexes
significant
part
longevity
differential
may
explained
social
fact
men
heavier
smokers
women
finally
reason
believe
congress
intended
special
definition
discrimination
context
employee
group
insurance
coverage
true
insurance
concerned
events
individually
unpredictable
characteristic
many
employment
decisions
individual
risks
like
individual
performance
may
predicted
resort
classifications
proscribed
title
vii
indeed
fact
case
involves
group
insurance
program
highlights
basic
flaw
department
fairness
argument
insurance
risks
grouped
better
risks
always
subsidize
poorer
risks
healthy
persons
subsidize
medical
benefits
less
healthy
unmarried
workers
subsidize
pensions
married
workers
persons
eat
drink
smoke
excess
may
subsidize
pension
benefits
persons
whose
habits
temperate
treating
different
classes
risks
though
purposes
group
insurance
common
practice
never
considered
inherently
unfair
insure
flabby
fit
though
equivalent
risks
may
common
treating
men
women
alike
nothing
habit
makes
one
subsidy
seem
less
fair
employment
practice
requires
individuals
contribute
money
fund
employees
simply
woman
rather
man
direct
conflict
language
policy
act
practice
pass
simple
test
whether
evidence
shows
treatment
person
manner
person
sex
different
constitutes
discrimination
unlawful
unless
exempted
equal
pay
act
affirmative
justification
ii
shortly
enactment
title
vii
senator
bennett
proposed
amendment
providing
compensation
differential
based
sex
unlawful
authorized
equal
pay
act
passed
year
earlier
equal
pay
act
requires
employers
pay
members
sexes
wages
equivalent
work
except
differential
pursuant
one
four
specified
exceptions
department
contends
fourth
exception
applies
exception
authorizes
differential
based
factor
sex
department
argues
different
contributions
exacted
men
women
based
factor
longevity
rather
sex
plain
however
individual
life
expectancy
based
number
factors
sex
one
record
contains
evidence
factor
employee
sex
taken
account
calculating
differential
respective
contributions
men
women
agree
judge
duniway
observation
one
say
actuarial
distinction
based
entirely
sex
based
factor
sex
sex
exactly
based
also
unpersuaded
department
reliance
colloquy
senator
randolph
senator
humphrey
debate
civil
rights
act
commenting
bennett
amendment
senator
humphrey
expressed
understanding
allow
many
differences
treatment
men
women
industrial
benefit
plans
including
earlier
retirement
options
women
though
address
differences
employee
contributions
based
sex
senator
humphrey
apparently
assumed
act
little
impact
existing
pension
plans
statement
however
fairly
made
sole
guide
interpreting
equal
pay
act
adopted
year
earlier
statute
exceptions
department
ultimately
relies
conclude
senator
humphrey
isolated
comment
senate
floor
change
effect
plain
language
statute
iii
department
argues
reversal
required
general
electric
gilbert
satisfied
however
neither
holding
reasoning
gilbert
controlling
gilbert
held
exclusion
pregnancy
employer
disability
benefit
plan
constitute
sex
discrimination
within
meaning
title
vii
relying
reasoning
geduldig
aiello
first
held
general
electric
plan
involve
discrimination
based
upon
gender
two
groups
potential
recipients
case
concerned
pregnant
women
nonpregnant
persons
first
group
exclusively
female
second
includes
members
sexes
contrast
two
groups
employees
involved
case
composed
entirely
exclusively
members
sex
face
plan
discriminates
basis
sex
whereas
general
electric
plan
discriminated
basis
special
physical
disability
gilbert
note
plan
actually
administered
provided
favorable
benefits
women
class
men
class
evidence
supported
conclusion
plaintiffs
failed
establish
prima
facie
case
proving
plan
discriminatory
face
also
failed
prove
discriminatory
effect
case
however
department
argues
absence
discriminatory
effect
women
class
justifies
employment
practice
face
discriminated
individual
employees
sex
even
department
actuarial
evidence
sufficient
prevent
plaintiffs
establishing
prima
facie
case
theory
effect
practice
women
class
discriminatory
evidence
defeat
claim
practice
face
discriminated
every
individual
woman
employed
department
essence
department
arguing
prima
facie
showing
discrimination
based
evidence
different
contributions
respective
sexes
rebutted
demonstration
like
difference
cost
providing
benefits
respective
classes
argument
might
prevail
title
vii
contained
defense
comparable
affirmative
defense
available
price
discrimination
suit
neither
congress
courts
recognized
defense
title
vii
although
conclude
department
practice
violated
title
vii
suggest
statute
intended
revolutionize
insurance
pension
industries
issue
today
requirement
men
women
make
unequal
contributions
pension
fund
nothing
holding
implies
unlawful
employer
set
aside
equal
retirement
contributions
employee
let
retiree
purchase
largest
benefit
accumulated
contributions
command
open
market
call
question
insurance
industry
practice
considering
composition
employer
work
force
determining
probable
cost
retirement
death
benefit
plan
finally
recognize
case
kind
may
necessary
take
special
care
fashioning
appropriate
relief
iv
department
challenges
district
award
retroactive
relief
entire
class
female
employees
retirees
title
vii
require
district
grant
retroactive
relief
finds
unlawful
discrimination
may
enjoin
discrimination
order
affirmative
action
may
appropriate
may
include
limited
reinstatement
without
back
pay
equitable
relief
deems
appropriate
supp
point
redundancy
statute
stresses
retroactive
relief
may
awarded
appropriate
albemarle
paper
moody
reviewed
scope
district
discretion
fashion
appropriate
remedies
title
vii
violation
concluded
backpay
denied
reasons
applied
generally
frustrate
central
statutory
purposes
eradicating
discrimination
throughout
economy
making
persons
whole
injuries
suffered
past
discrimination
applying
standard
ruled
award
backpay
conditioned
showing
bad
faith
albemarle
also
held
backpay
awarded
automatically
every
case
albemarle
presumption
favor
retroactive
liability
seldom
overcome
make
meaningless
district
courts
duty
determine
relief
appropriate
several
reasons
conclude
district
gave
insufficient
attention
equitable
nature
title
vii
remedies
although
doubt
application
statute
case
must
recognize
conscientious
intelligent
administrators
pension
funds
benefit
extensive
briefs
arguments
presented
us
may
well
assumed
program
like
department
entirely
lawful
courts
silent
question
administrative
agencies
conflicting
views
department
failure
act
swiftly
sign
recalcitrance
problem
complexity
commentators
noted
pension
administrators
reasonably
thought
unfair
even
illegal
make
male
employees
shoulder
actuarial
share
pension
burden
reason
believe
threat
backpay
award
needed
cause
administrators
amend
practices
conform
decision
ignore
potential
impact
changes
rules
affecting
insurance
pension
plans
may
economy
fifty
million
americans
participate
retirement
plans
social
security
assets
held
trust
employees
vast
growing
billion
reserved
retirement
benefits
end
reserves
increasing
almost
billion
year
plans
like
forms
insurance
depend
accumulation
large
sums
cover
contingencies
amounts
set
aside
determined
painstaking
assessment
insurer
likely
liability
risks
insurer
foresees
included
calculation
liability
rates
contributions
charged
reflect
calculation
occurrence
major
unforeseen
contingencies
however
jeopardizes
insurer
solvency
ultimately
insureds
benefits
drastic
changes
legal
rules
governing
pension
insurance
funds
like
unforeseen
events
effect
consequently
rules
apply
funds
applied
retroactively
unless
legislature
plainly
commanded
result
eeoc
recognized
administrators
retirement
plans
must
given
time
adjust
gradually
title
vii
demands
courts
also
shown
sensitivity
special
dangers
retroactive
title
vii
awards
field
see
rosen
public
serv
elec
gas
supp
nj
doubt
prohibition
employee
contributions
represents
marked
departure
past
practice
although
title
vii
enacted
apparently
first
litigation
challenging
contribution
differences
based
valid
actuarial
tables
retroactive
liability
devastating
pension
fund
harm
fall
large
part
innocent
third
parties
courts
apparently
contemplated
plaintiffs
contributions
recovered
pension
fund
administrators
fund
forced
meet
unchanged
obligations
diminished
assets
reserve
proves
inadequate
either
expectations
retired
employees
disappointed
current
employees
forced
pay
future
security
also
unanticipated
reduction
contributions
past
employees
without
qualifying
force
albemarle
presumption
favor
retroactive
relief
conclude
error
grant
relief
case
accordingly
although
agree
appeals
analysis
statute
vacate
judgment
remand
case
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
addition
department
petitioners
include
members
board
commissioners
department
members
plan
board
administration
plan
record
brief
department
plan
provides
several
kinds
pension
benefits
employee
option
common
formula
pension
equal
average
monthly
salary
paid
last
year
employment
times
number
years
employment
benefit
guaranteed
life
department
contributes
amount
equal
employee
contributions
significance
disparity
illustrated
record
one
woman
whose
contributions
fund
including
interest
amount
withheld
month
amounted
similarly
situated
male
contributed
stat
effective
mar
addition
five
individual
plaintiffs
respondents
include
individuals
union
international
brotherhood
electrical
workers
local
union
see
cal
govt
code
ann
west
supp
earlier
granted
preliminary
injunction
supp
two
weeks
ninth
circuit
decision
decided
general
electric
gilbert
response
petition
rehearing
majority
ninth
circuit
panel
concluded
original
decision
conflict
gilbert
judge
kilkenny
dissented
see
nn
infra
see
developments
law
employment
discrimination
title
vii
civil
rights
act
harv
rev
forbidding
employers
discriminate
individuals
sex
congress
intended
strike
entire
spectrum
disparate
treatment
men
women
resulting
sex
stereotypes
section
subjects
scrutiny
eliminates
irrational
impediments
job
opportunities
enjoyment
plagued
women
past
sprogis
air
lines
size
subsidy
involved
case
open
doubt
department
plan
provides
survivors
benefits
since
female
spouses
male
employees
likely
greater
life
expectancies
male
spouses
female
employees
whatever
benefits
men
lose
primary
coverage
may
regain
secondary
coverage
wives
example
life
expectancy
white
baby
years
nonwhite
baby
expect
live
years
difference
years
see
public
health
service
iia
vital
statistics
table
fortifying
conclusion
fact
banned
higher
life
insurance
rates
blacks
since
century
see
generally
james
metropolitan
life
study
business
growth
see
retherford
changing
sex
differential
mortality
social
causes
drinking
eating
habits
perhaps
even
lingering
effects
past
employment
discrimination
may
also
affect
mortality
differential
study
life
expectancy
showed
men
expect
live
years
age
divorced
married
expect
reach
years
age
difference
years
record
indicates
however
department
funded
plan
equal
contributions
male
female
employees
death
benefit
unlike
pension
benefit
less
value
persons
longer
life
expectancies
department
concept
fairness
neutral
funding
death
benefits
unfair
women
class
variation
department
fairness
theme
suggestion
pension
plan
violate
title
vii
disproportionately
heavy
impact
male
employees
cf
griggs
duke
power
suggestion
force
sex
discrimination
context
retiree
total
pension
benefits
ultimately
determined
actual
life
span
differential
benefits
paid
men
women
aggregate
thus
based
factor
sex
consequently
immune
challenge
equal
pay
act
cf
infra
even
title
vii
assuming
analysis
applies
fringe
benefits
cf
nashville
gas
satty
male
employees
prevail
even
completely
neutral
practice
inevitably
disproportionate
impact
one
group
another
griggs
imply
never
held
discrimination
must
always
inferred
consequences
developments
law
supra
see
also
sprogis
air
lines
stevens
dissenting
bennett
amendment
became
part
provides
part
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
title
employer
differentiate
upon
basis
sex
determining
amount
wages
compensation
paid
paid
employees
employer
differentiation
authorized
provisions
section
fair
labor
standards
act
amended
stat
equal
pay
act
provides
part
employer
employees
subject
provisions
section
shall
discriminate
within
establishment
employees
employed
employees
basis
sex
paying
wages
employees
establishment
rate
less
rate
pays
wages
employees
opposite
sex
establishment
equal
work
jobs
performance
requires
equal
skill
effort
responsibility
performed
similar
working
conditions
except
payment
made
pursuant
seniority
system
ii
merit
system
iii
system
measures
earnings
quantity
quality
production
iv
differential
based
factor
sex
provided
employer
paying
wage
rate
differential
violation
subsection
shall
order
comply
provisions
subsection
reduce
wage
rate
employee
stat
need
decide
whether
retirement
benefits
contributions
benefit
plans
wages
act
bennett
amendment
extends
act
four
exceptions
forms
compensation
covered
title
vii
see
supra
department
pension
benefits
contributions
maintain
compensation
title
vii
cf
peters
cert
denied
department
argument
specious
contribution
schedule
distinguished
imperfectly
employees
distinguishing
precisely
male
female
employees
contrast
entirely
system
contributions
benefits
result
differing
retirement
benefits
precisely
based
longevity
retirees
long
lives
always
receive
money
comparable
employees
short
lives
plan
also
distinguish
crude
way
male
female
pensioners
difference
average
life
spans
sort
disparity
explicitly
differential
equal
pay
act
intended
authorize
randolph
president
wish
ask
senator
minnesota
humphrey
effective
manager
pending
bill
clarifying
question
provisions
title
vii
mind
social
security
system
certain
respects
treats
men
women
differently
example
widows
benefits
paid
automatically
widower
qualifies
disabled
actually
supported
deceased
wife
also
wife
retired
employee
entitled
social
security
receives
additional
old
age
benefit
husband
employee
differences
treatment
recall
long
standing
correct
ask
senator
minnesota
assuming
similar
differences
treatment
industrial
benefit
plans
including
earlier
retirement
options
women
may
continue
operation
bill
becomes
law
humphrey
yes
point
made
unmistakably
clear
earlier
today
adoption
bennett
amendment
doubt
cong
rec
administrative
constructions
provision
look
two
directions
wage
hour
administrator
charged
enforcing
equal
pay
act
never
expressly
approved
different
employee
contribution
rates
said
either
equal
employer
contributions
equal
benefits
satisfy
act
cfr
time
stated
wage
differential
based
differences
average
costs
employing
men
women
based
factor
sex
cfr
administrator
reasons
second
ruling
illuminating
group
employees
solely
basis
sex
purposes
comparison
costs
necessarily
rests
assumption
sex
factor
alone
may
justify
wage
differential
assumption
plainly
contrary
terms
purpose
equal
pay
act
wage
differentials
based
serve
perpetuate
promote
discrimination
act
directed
grouping
sex
employees
cost
data
relates
group
cost
experience
necessarily
assessed
individual
one
sex
without
regard
whether
costs
employer
less
employ
individual
particular
individual
opposite
sex
similar
working
conditions
jobs
requiring
equal
skill
effort
responsibility
ibid
extent
conflict
find
reasoning
power
persuade
ipse
dixit
cf
skidmore
swift
quoting
geduldig
opinion
stated
case
thus
far
cry
cases
like
reed
reed
frontiero
richardson
involving
discrimination
based
upon
gender
california
insurance
program
exclude
anyone
benefit
eligibility
gender
merely
removes
one
physical
condition
pregnancy
list
compensable
disabilities
quotation
added
quoted
language
geduldig
leaves
doubt
reason
rejecting
appellee
equal
protection
claim
case
exclusion
pregnancy
coverage
california
plan
discrimination
based
sex
see
recently
noted
nashville
gas
satty
gilbert
holding
depend
evidence
rather
holding
rested
plaintiff
failure
prove
either
facial
discrimination
discriminatory
effect
amici
suggest
department
discrimination
justified
business
necessity
argue
gender
distinction
drawn
many
male
employees
withdraw
plan
even
department
get
better
pension
plan
private
market
department
long
required
equal
contributions
plan
see
supra
since
required
equal
contributions
pension
plan
yet
department
points
adverse
selection
affected
employees
presumably
employee
wants
leave
plan
must
also
leave
job
workers
quit
one
fringe
benefits
theoretically
obtained
marginally
lower
price
open
market
short
showing
sex
distinctions
reasonably
necessary
normal
operation
department
retirement
plan
see
act
proof
cost
differences
justifies
otherwise
illegal
price
discrimination
negate
existence
discrimination
see
ftc
morton
salt
even
contribution
differential
based
sound
business
practice
nevertheless
discriminatory
defendant
forced
assert
affirmative
defense
escape
liability
defenses
title
vii
equal
pay
act
considerably
narrower
see
supra
broad
defense
proposed
rejected
equal
pay
act
became
law
representative
findley
offered
amendment
equal
pay
act
expressly
authorized
wage
differential
tied
ascertainable
specific
added
cost
resulting
employment
opposite
sex
cong
rec
pointed
employment
women
might
costly
matters
higher
turnover
state
laws
restricting
women
hours
equal
pay
act
supporters
responded
cost
differences
handled
focusing
factors
sex
actually
caused
differences
absenteeism
number
hours
worked
amendment
rejected
largely
redundant
reason
senate
report
hand
seem
assume
statute
may
recognize
limited
cost
defense
based
elements
employment
costs
men
women
difficult
find
language
statute
supporting
even
limited
defense
event
defense
based
total
cost
employing
men
women
attempted
case
title
vii
equal
pay
act
primarily
govern
relations
employees
employer
employees
third
parties
suggest
course
employer
avoid
responsibilities
delegating
discriminatory
programs
corporate
shells
title
vii
applies
agent
covered
employer
supp
equal
pay
act
applies
person
acting
directly
indirectly
interest
employer
relation
employee
case
example
department
deny
administrative
board
agent
successfully
argued
two
inseparable
shared
city
immunity
suit
title
vii
bans
discrimination
individual
individual
sex
equal
pay
act
prohibits
discrimination
within
establishment
discrimination
defined
paying
wages
employees
rate
less
rate
employer
pays
wages
employees
opposite
sex
equal
work
neither
provisions
makes
unlawful
determine
funding
requirements
establishment
benefit
plan
considering
composition
entire
force
specifically
held
defendant
prejudiced
reliance
plaintiff
initial
waiver
backpay
claims
absolved
backpay
liability
district
reserved
question
whether
reliance
different
kind
state
protective
laws
requiring
sex
differentiation
also
save
defendant
liability
according
district
defendant
liability
contributions
begin
april
day
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
issued
interpretation
casting
doubt
varieties
pension
fund
discrimination
see
fed
reg
even
assuming
eeoc
decision
put
defendants
notice
acting
illegally
date
chosen
district
early
taken
account
difficulty
amending
major
pension
plan
task
accomplished
overnight
moreover
given
conclusive
weight
eeoc
guideline
see
general
electric
gilbert
wage
hour
administrator
whose
rulings
also
provide
defense
sex
discrimination
cases
refused
follow
eeoc
see
infra
doubt
district
equitable
sensitivity
impact
refund
order
raised
decision
award
full
difference
contributions
made
male
employees
made
female
employees
may
give
victims
discrimination
due
undifferentiated
actuarial
table
employed
contributions
women
employees
doubt
lower
low
contributions
actually
made
men
period
district
least
considered
ordering
refund
difference
contributions
made
women
contributions
made
actuarially
sound
nondiscriminatory
plan
noted
earlier
supra
position
wage
hour
administrator
somewhat
confusing
general
rule
rejected
differences
average
cost
defense
specific
rule
lent
support
department
view
simply
requiring
employer
equalize
either
contributions
employee
benefits
compare
cfr
eeoc
requires
equal
benefits
see
cfr
two
agencies
responsibility
equal
opportunity
employment
adhere
wage
hour
administrator
position
see
cfr
office
federal
contract
compliance
cfr
dept
health
education
welfare
see
also
fed
reg
hew
employer
establishes
pension
plan
charges
discrimination
reversed
chooses
money
purchase
formula
women
complain
receive
less
per
month
employer
insurance
company
quick
point
women
group
actually
receive
equal
contributions
made
effect
compound
interest
women
employees
still
complain
discrimination
employer
chooses
defined
benefit
formula
male
employees
allege
discrimination
contributes
women
group
men
group
employer
dilemma
damned
discrimination
context
matter
note
sex
discrimination
mortality
tables
rev
footnotes
omitted
american
council
life
insurance
pension
facts
pp
congress
underlined
importance
making
gradual
prospective
changes
rules
govern
pension
plans
year
congress
passed
bill
regulating
employee
retirement
programs
employee
retirement
income
security
act
stat
bill
paid
careful
attention
problem
retroactivity
set
wide
variety
effective
dates
different
provisions
new
law
rules
fully
effective
decade
law
enacted
see
supp
june
june
february
eeoc
issued
guidelines
disapproving
differences
male
female
retirement
ages
september
year
eeoc
general
counsel
gave
opinion
retirement
plans
set
gradual
schedules
complying
guidelines
judgment
parties
speedily
comply
carry
considerable
weight
see
chastang
flynn
emrich
plaintiffs
assert
award
case
crippling
defendants
limited
contributions
base
ruling
facts
case
alone
noted
albemarle
paper
moody
equitable
remedies
may
flexible
still
must
founded
principle
important
national
goals
frustrated
regime
discretion
produce
different
results
breaches
duty
situations
differentiated
policy
employers
liable
improper
contributions
made
two
years
charge
filed
eeoc
supp
unusual
cases
remain
within
eeoc
years
charge
filed
see
occidental
life
ins
eeoc
years
months
delay
prelude
time
inevitably
consumed
civil
litigation
appeals
plainly
expected
plan
pay
award
noted
imposing
retroactive
liability
might
leave
plan
somewhat
making
observation
appeals
suggested
series
possible
solutions
problem
benefits
retired
workers
lowered
burden
current
employees
increased
department
decide
contribute
enough
offset
plan
unexpected
loss
ibid
two
commentators
urging
illegality
pension
plans
noted
danger
staggering
damage
awards
proposed
one
cure
exercise
judicial
discretion
refuse
backpay
award
hardship
work
employer
acted
good
faith
bernstein
williams
title
vii
problem
sex
classifications
pension
programs
colum
rev
justice
blackmun
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
justice
stewart
wrote
opinion
geduldig
aiello
joined
opinion
general
electric
gilbert
justice
white
justice
powell
joined
geduldig
general
electric
justice
stevens
writes
opinion
present
case
dissented
general
electric
justice
marshall
joins
opinion
large
part
joined
dissent
geduldig
general
electric
discomfort
latter
case
apparent
believe
separate
concurrence
ibid
lineups
surely
without
significance
participation
brothers
stewart
white
powell
today
majority
opinion
sign
decision
case
tension
geduldig
general
electric
indeed
wholly
consistent
sure
votes
justice
marshall
justice
stevens
indicate
quite
contrary
given
decisions
geduldig
general
electric
one
constitutional
statutory
present
case
easy
one
might
thought
decisions
required
conclude
critical
difference
department
pension
payments
based
life
expectancy
nonstigmatizing
factor
demonstrably
differentiates
females
males
measurable
individual
basis
might
thought
nothing
arbitrary
irrational
discriminatory
recognizing
objective
accepted
see
ante
disparity
life
expectancies
computing
rates
retirement
plans
moreover
unrealistic
attempt
force
individualized
analysis
upon
basically
insurance
context
unlike
possibility
example
properly
testing
job
applicants
qualifications
employment
simply
way
determine
advance
particular
employee
die
rationale
course
congress
title
vii
civil
rights
act
amended
intended
eliminate
certain
exceptions
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
factors
upon
employers
may
act
program
one
challenged
exacerbate
gender
consciousness
program
consideration
general
electric
exactly
thing
yet
upheld
challenge
distinction
present
case
general
electric
permitted
classes
pregnant
women
nonpregnant
persons
female
male
ante
seems
easy
probably
distinction
drawn
serve
distinguish
case
principled
basis
therefore
must
conclude
today
decision
cuts
back
general
electric
inferentially
geduldig
reasoning
adopted
indeed
makes
recognition
cases
continuing
precedent
somewhat
questionable
say
necessarily
bad
congress
chosen
title
vii
today
assurance
asserts
feel
however
meet
posture
earlier
cases
head
thin
rationalization
seeks
distinguish
fails
quest
therefore
join
part
iv
opinion
concur
judgment
interest
justice
stevens
dissent
general
electric
strongly
protested
distinction
must
make
accurate
describe
program
dividing
potential
recipients
two
groups
pregnant
women
nonpregnant
persons
classification
persons
face
risk
pregnancy
chief
justice
burger
justice
rehnquist
joins
concurring
part
dissenting
part
join
part
iv
opinion
parts
ii
iii
dissent
actuarial
tables
use
since
least
statistical
validity
repeatedly
verified
vast
life
insurance
annuity
pension
plan
industry
based
tables
recognizes
ante
fact
women
class
live
longer
men
equally
true
employers
know
advance
individual
members
classes
die
ante
yet
operate
economically
workable
group
pension
programs
rational
permit
rely
statistically
sound
proved
disparities
longevity
men
women
indeed
seems
irrational
assume
congress
intended
outlaw
use
fact
whatever
reasons
combination
reasons
women
class
outlive
men
conclusion
language
civil
rights
statute
clear
admitting
advertence
legislative
history
soundly
based
effect
upon
pension
plans
revolutionary
discriminatory
time
favorable
women
expense
men
read
statute
without
either
clear
statement
intent
statute
reliable
indication
legislative
history
congress
purpose
casual
dismissal
senator
humphrey
apparent
assumption
act
little
impact
existing
pension
plans
ante
dismiss
significant
manifestation
impact
industrial
benefit
plans
contemplated
reasonably
clear
intention
abrogate
employer
right
narrow
limited
context
treat
women
differently
men
face
historical
reliance
mortality
experience
statistics
cf
ante
reality
differences
human
mortality
mortality
experience
tables
reflect
difference
added
longevity
women
reasons
women
statistically
outlive
men
clear
categorizing
people
basis
sex
one
acknowledged
immutable
difference
men
women
take
account
unknown
reasons
whether
biologically
culturally
based
give
women
significantly
greater
life
expectancy
men
therefore
true
says
individual
life
expectancy
based
number
factors
sex
one
ante
true
seizing
upon
constant
measurable
factor
others
taken
account
factors
whether
known
variable
unknown
elements
automatically
account
actuarial
disparity
accounted
constant
factor
used
basis
determining
costs
benefits
group
pension
plan
course
petitioners
discriminating
pay
men
women
cf
general
electric
gilbert
nashville
gas
satty
practice
petitioners
however
falls
squarely
exemption
provided
equal
pay
act
incorporated
title
vii
bennett
amendment
stat
exemption
tells
us
employer
may
discriminate
employees
basis
sex
paying
one
sex
lesser
compensation
except
payment
made
pursuant
differential
based
factor
sex
factor
sex
longevity
sex
elements
leading
differences
longevity
grouped
assimilated
objective
feature
upon
employer
anyone
else
including
insurance
companies
may
reliably
base
cost
differential
risk
insured
sense
failure
treat
women
individuals
violation
statute
holds
treat
individually
possible
face
unknowable
length
individual
life
individually
every
woman
statistical
possibility
outliving
men
essence
basing
decisions
reliable
statistics
individual
determinations
infeasible
impossible
course
women
disqualified
example
heavy
labor
generality
women
thought
strong
men
proposition
perhaps
may
sometime
statistically
demonstrable
remain
individually
refutable
however
impossible
tailor
program
pension
plan
individual
nothing
prevent
application
reliable
statistical
facts
individual
facts
disproved
long
planning
funding
operating
program
undertaken
find
anomalous
contradictory
opinion
tells
us
effect
ante
holding
really
barrier
responding
complaints
men
employees
group
employers
may
give
employees
precisely
dollar
amount
require
secure
annuities
directly
insurer
course
compulsion
ignore
years
accumulated
recorded
longevity
experience
see
moir
sources
characteristics
principal
mortality
tables
see
nations
demographic
yearbook
case
course
nothing
discrimination
race
color
religion
national
origin
cf
ante
nn
qualification
bennett
amendment
permitted
incorporation
equal
pay
act
pertained
claims
discrimination
sex
justice
marshall
concurring
part
dissenting
part
agree
title
vii
civil
rights
act
amended
forbids
petitioners
practice
requiring
female
employees
make
larger
contributions
pension
fund
male
employees
therefore
join
opinion
except
part
iv
also
agree
statement
part
iv
title
vii
violation
found
albemarle
paper
moody
establishes
presumption
favor
retroactive
liability
presumption
seldom
overcome
ante
agree
presumption
deemed
overcome
case
especially
since
relief
granted
district
exercise
discretion
upheld
appeals
affirm
decision
therefore
join
part
iv
opinion
judgment
albemarle
paper
moody
supra
made
clear
subject
presumption
favor
retroactive
relief
district
retains
traditional
equitable
discretion
locate
result
appellate
review
limited
determining
whether
district
clearly
erroneous
factual
findings
whether
abused
discretion
see
also
fed
rule
civ
proc
district
findings
shall
set
aside
unless
clearly
erroneous
zenith
radio
hazeltine
research
assert
findings
district
clearly
erroneous
conclude
abuse
discretion
instead
merely
district
gave
insufficient
attention
certain
factors
striking
equitable
balance
ante
first
factor
mentioned
relates
complexity
issue
presented
may
led
pension
fund
administrators
assume
program
like
department
entirely
lawful
alternative
equal
contributions
perhaps
unlawful
perceived
unfair
ness
men
ante
district
found
however
petitioners
placed
notice
illegality
requiring
larger
contributions
women
april
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
amended
regulations
make
illegality
clear
retroactive
relief
ordered
district
ran
april
december
date
petitioners
changed
equal
contribution
program
see
ante
even
april
beginning
date
early
contends
ante
nearly
period
involved
surely
point
conscientious
intelligent
administrators
ante
responded
eeoc
guidelines
yet
today
denies
retroactive
relief
without
even
knowing
whether
petitioners
made
efforts
ascertain
particular
plan
legality
major
factor
relied
involves
potential
impact
economy
might
result
retroactive
changes
rules
applying
pension
insurance
funds
according
changes
jeopardiz
insurer
solvency
ultimately
insureds
benefits
ante
first
factor
however
little
reference
made
situation
case
claim
made
either
petitioners
relief
granted
way
threatened
plan
solvency
indeed
risks
nature
foresee
thus
included
calculation
liability
reflected
rates
contributions
charged
ibid
one
suggested
moreover
relatively
modest
award
issue
involving
small
percentage
amounts
withheld
respondents
paychecks
pension
purposes
period
see
way
considered
devastating
ante
devastating
award
made
future
case
ample
opportunity
strike
time
necessarily
speculative
character
analysis
part
iv
underscored
suggestion
retroactive
relief
case
led
reduction
benefits
paid
retirees
increase
contributions
paid
current
employees
ante
taking
award
pension
fund
apparently
contemplated
courts
ante
district
gave
indication
thought
recovery
come
appeals
listed
number
ultimate
sources
money
involved
including
increased
employer
contributions
fund
one
payment
department
indeed
department
contemplated
money
award
come
city
revenues
pet
cert
department
thereby
paying
title
vii
award
way
pay
ordinary
backpay
award
arising
discriminatory
practices
hence
possibility
harm
falling
innocent
retirees
employees
ante
largely
chimerical
thus
several
factors
mentioned
might
important
case
appear
provide
little
cause
concern
case
presently
us
extent
believes
factors
adequately
considered
award
retroactive
relief
made
moreover
surely
proper
course
remand
district
findings
new
equitable
assessment
appropriate
remedy
district
found
abused
discretion
denying
backpay
albemarle
take
upon
formulate
award
remanded
district
purpose
reason
deny
retroactive
relief
relevant
legal
considerations
established
task
finding
facts
applying
law
facts
best
left
district
particularly
equitable
search
result
involved
case
however
believe
remand
necessary
district
considered
question
petitioners
charged
knowledge
state
law
see
supra
petitioners
challenge
particular
date
selected
claim
needed
time
adjust
plan
discussed
moreover
claim
made
department
plan
solvency
threatened
appears
unlikely
either
retirees
employees
paid
part
award
every
indication
short
factors
thinks
might
important
hypothetical
case
concern
petitioners
pay
award
case
today
reaffirms
force
albemarle
presumption
favor
retroactive
relief
ante
yet
fails
give
effect
principal
reason
presumption
exists
albemarle
emphasized
central
purpose
title
vii
making
persons
whole
injuries
suffered
past
discrimination
see
respondents
case
made
whole
unless
receive
refund
money
illegally
withheld
paychecks
petitioners
claim
funds
compelling
claim
many
backpay
situations
person
discriminated
receives
payment
period
working
appeals
observed
respondents
actually
earned
amount
question
taken
violation
title
vii
view
strength
respondents
restitution
claim
view
statute
central
purpose
albemarle
affirm
judgment
appeals
district
quoted
following
eeoc
regulations
shall
defense
title
vii
charge
sex
discrimination
benefits
cost
benefits
greater
respect
one
sex
cfr
supp
cd
cal
see
also
cfr
employer
may
discriminate
men
women
regard
fringe
benefits
also
adopted
apr
employer
pension
plan
may
differentiat
benefits
basis
sex
adopted
apr
also
contends
respondents
entitled
refund
full
difference
contributions
made
contributions
made
similarly
situated
men
rather
difference
contributions
contributions
made
actuarially
sound
nondiscriminatory
plan
ante
point
like
question
appropriate
date
discussed
text
raised
petitioners
event
argue
reduction
retroactive
relief
awarded
complete
denial
relief
merits
moreover
district
decision
place
women
employees
equal
footing
male
surely
unreasonable
alternative
suggested
still
left
women
higher
pension
payments
similarly
situated
men
relevant
period
respondents
filed
charge
eeoc
june
petitioners
put
notice
possibility
retroactive
relief
awarded
point
know
may
acted
ensure
outcome
litigation
affect
viability
plan
example
escrowing
amounts
cover
contingency
losing
respondents
prudent
pension
plan
administrator
however
certain
legal
position
reasonably
ignored
contingency
thus
correct
years
litigation
may
ensue
charge
filed
eeoc
fact
largely
irrelevant
concern
major
unforeseen
contingencies
award
retroactive
relief
adversely
affecting
financial
integrity
pension
plan
ante
hardly
likely
retroactive
award
period
prior
filing
eeoc
charge
devastating
plan
since
recognizes
period
case
longer
two
years
ante
see
supp
instant
case
period
award
began
run
charge
filed
eeoc
one
year
april
june
even
liability
period
moreover
involved
small
percentage
contributions
made
women
employees
discussed
text
infra