Kentucky Retirement Sys. v. EEOC

Questions presented:

Attorneys for Petitioners:Robert D. Klausner 10059 N.W. 1st CourtCounsel of RecordPlantation, FL 33324Party name: Kentucky Retirement Systems, Commonwealth of Kentucky, and Jefferson County Sheriff's Department

Attorneys for Respondent:Paul D. Clement Solicitor General(202) 514-2217Counsel of Record United States Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20530-0001SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.govParty name: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Other:Thomas L. Casey Solicitor General(517) 373-1124Office of the Attorney GeneralP.O. Box 30212Lansing, MI 48909Party name: Michigan, et al.

Robert E. Tarcza 228 St Charles Ave.(504)-525-6696Suite 1310New Orleans, LA 70130Party name: National Association of State Retirement Administrators, et al.

A divided Supreme Court held that a pension plan that openly gives different levels of retirement benefits to workers based on their age does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The retirement plan at issue in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes a two-tier calculation of so-called "disability retirement benefits." Under the plan, hazardous duty workers such as plaintiff-Deputy Sheriff Charles Lickteig, are eligible to retire at 55. If they opt to keep working and then become disabled, they receive only their scheduled retirement benefits.

In contrast, workers who become disabled before hitting 55 receive payments that reflect not only their actual years of service but the number of years remaining until they would have reached 55. In effect,if two workers were otherwise identical, the one who retired on disability before 55 would always get benefits equal to or greater than those of the post-55 retiree.

The District Court and a panel of the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Kentucky plan did not violate the ADEA because while it took age into account to determine disability retirement benefits, it did not attach any stigma to age itself. The Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc and reversed, holding that the simple act of treating younger disabled retirees better than older ones was sufficient to make out a prima facie ADEA violation. A quartet of judges, led by Judge Denny Boggs, dissented.

The Kentucky Retirement System has argued that the primary goal of the ADEA was to prohibit employment decisions based on arbitrary and unjustified stereotypes about older workers. The two-tier plan reflects no such stereotypes and therefore passes muster, it urged in its petition for certiorari.

Not so, countered the EEOC. "A benefits plan that facially treats older workers less favorably than younger workers because of their age violates the ADEA," it summed up in its brief opposing a grant of certiorari.

Plaintiff Lickteig decided against retirement at 55, in order to continue supporting his school-aged children. Six years later, he became disabled because of "a deteriorating vertebra, arthritis, nerve damage, and Parkinson's disease," and stopped working. When he applied for disability retirement benefits, he received word that he was eligible only for standard retirement.

On June 19, a divided Supreme Court overturned the decision of the full Sixth Circuit, holding that the retirement system did not discriminate against older workers.

"The Plan does not, on its face, create treatment differences that are 'actually motivated' by age," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority. "And, for present purposes, we accept the District Court’s finding that the Government has pointed to no additional evidence that might permit a factfinder to reach a contrary conclusion."

Writing for the dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito, wrote that the majority had ignored "established rules for interpreting and enforcing one of the most important statutes Congress has enacted to protect the Nation’s work force from age discrimination."