U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release
Federal Agency Charged Pension System Was Unfair to Employees Aged 55 and Older; Court Official Will Process and Resolve Claims
SAN JUAN, P.R. – The University of Puerto Rico (UPR) has agreed to settle a class age discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that the UPR discriminated against public employees age 55 and older by not allowing them to obtain pension credit because of their age.
The EEOC’s suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Juan (Civil Action No. 06-1660), alleged that prior to 2001 UPR did not allow older employees to become members of pension systems. In 2001 the UPR changed its rules to allow older employees to become members, but required that employees age 55 and older pay, in addition to the employee’s contribution to the retirement system, the employer’s contribution as well.
“In this era of economic uncertainty, retirement security is more critical than ever” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “When that retirement security is undermined by practices that violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the EEOC will fight back to protect the rights of older workers, as we did in this case.”
This lawsuit is related to the EEOC’s lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where the EEOC alleged that the Commonwealth did not allow older employees to become members of retirement systems. The UPR agreement provides that the district court will appoint the same special master (an officer of the court) to process and resolve discrimination claims, which the EEOC estimates will be more than $200,000. Employees who make the employee contributions to their retirement systems will be eligible for a pension; if they are retired, they will receive lost benefits. Retired U.S. District Judge Hector Laffitte will be the special master.
“Not allowing older employees to participate in essential retirement plans is discriminatory,” said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Michael O’Brien. “The EEOC will vigorously enforce the law and we hope this lawsuit reminds other employers of their obligations under federal law.”
Spencer H. Lewis, director of the EEOC’s New York District Office, said, “Employers need to be aware of their responsibilities under the age discrimination laws and treat older employees equally.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-2-10.cfm
Showing posts with label pensions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pensions. Show all posts
Monday, March 8, 2010
Friday, May 22, 2009
Ledbetter All Over Again
Alliance for Justice
ATT v. Hulteen - Decision 05/18/09
Lily Ledbetter became a national leader in the fight against sex discrimination after the Supreme Court overturned a jury’s finding that Goodyear had systematically paid her less than her male co-workers. Noreen Hulteen is the latest victim of a Supreme Court that fails to acknowledge the realities of discrimination against women in the workplace.
On Monday, May 18, the Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. Noreen Hulteen was one of four named plaintiffs challenging AT&T's policy of calculating pension and retirement benefits in a way that penalized women who had taken pregnancy leave before the effective date of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
Ms. Hulteen and three other women sued after they discovered that their pensions were smaller than expected because AT&T failed to credit them for their time off during pregnancy as they would have credited any non-pregnancy disability leave.
The District Court found for the employees following Ninth Circuit precedent that held that an employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it made the decision to treat pre-Pregnancy Discrimination Act pregnancy leave less favorably than all other temporary disability leave. A three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit overturned the decision, but upon rehearing the full panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision finding that AT&T engaged in an act of discrimination each time it calculated benefits in a way that gave less credit for pregnancy leave than for any other temporary disability leave. Thus, in the view of the Ninth Circuit, the respondents were affected by the discriminatory pregnancy policy anew when they sought their retirement.
Unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court viewed the issue differently and Ms. Hulteen, like Ms. Ledbetter, is out of luck.
A majority of the Court followed a 1976 decision, General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, that defied reality by holding that discrimination against pregnant women was not discrimination on the basis of sex. Therefore, the Court held, a disability plan that excluded pregnancy-related disabilities was not discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. Extending the reasoning of Gilbert, the Hulteen majority said that because the women took their leave at a time when it was legal to discriminate against pregnant women under Gilbert (before Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in response to Gilbert), AT&T's policy was legal even though it perpetuated a pension benefit calculation that would now unquestionably be unlawful discrimination.
Full Story: http://www.afj.org/check-the-facts/cases/ledbetter-all-over-again.html?templateName=template-30435721
ATT v. Hulteen - Decision 05/18/09
Lily Ledbetter became a national leader in the fight against sex discrimination after the Supreme Court overturned a jury’s finding that Goodyear had systematically paid her less than her male co-workers. Noreen Hulteen is the latest victim of a Supreme Court that fails to acknowledge the realities of discrimination against women in the workplace.
On Monday, May 18, the Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. Noreen Hulteen was one of four named plaintiffs challenging AT&T's policy of calculating pension and retirement benefits in a way that penalized women who had taken pregnancy leave before the effective date of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
Ms. Hulteen and three other women sued after they discovered that their pensions were smaller than expected because AT&T failed to credit them for their time off during pregnancy as they would have credited any non-pregnancy disability leave.
The District Court found for the employees following Ninth Circuit precedent that held that an employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it made the decision to treat pre-Pregnancy Discrimination Act pregnancy leave less favorably than all other temporary disability leave. A three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit overturned the decision, but upon rehearing the full panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision finding that AT&T engaged in an act of discrimination each time it calculated benefits in a way that gave less credit for pregnancy leave than for any other temporary disability leave. Thus, in the view of the Ninth Circuit, the respondents were affected by the discriminatory pregnancy policy anew when they sought their retirement.
Unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court viewed the issue differently and Ms. Hulteen, like Ms. Ledbetter, is out of luck.
A majority of the Court followed a 1976 decision, General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, that defied reality by holding that discrimination against pregnant women was not discrimination on the basis of sex. Therefore, the Court held, a disability plan that excluded pregnancy-related disabilities was not discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. Extending the reasoning of Gilbert, the Hulteen majority said that because the women took their leave at a time when it was legal to discriminate against pregnant women under Gilbert (before Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in response to Gilbert), AT&T's policy was legal even though it perpetuated a pension benefit calculation that would now unquestionably be unlawful discrimination.
Full Story: http://www.afj.org/check-the-facts/cases/ledbetter-all-over-again.html?templateName=template-30435721
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Study Reveals Gender Gap in Pension Benefits
Workforce Management
January 28, 2008
Study Reveals Gender Gap in Pension Benefits
Employment-based pensions received by men typically are much higher than pensions received by women, but the gap is likely to narrow somewhat in the future, according to a study released Thursday.
The study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington found that 44.6 percent of men age 65 and older received an employment-based pension during 2006, with a median benefit of $17,200 annually. By contrast, only 28.4 percent of women received a pension, with a median benefit of $11,142 a year.
The reason for this gender disparity is that older women tend to spend less time in the workforce than their male counterparts, as well as have lower-paying jobs, according to the EBRI study. Those circumstances directly affect the size of their pension, since the benefit is largely based on income and years of service. Additionally, defined-benefit plans typically require employees to work five years before they are fully vested in a benefit.
While younger women still, on average, spend less time in the labor force than younger men and tend to earn less, today’s younger women on average will work longer than women who were 50 or older in 2006, according to the study.
As a result, younger women will be more likely to earn a pension and the amount they earn will increase over time as younger generations of women retire, the study found.
Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/32/35.html
January 28, 2008
Study Reveals Gender Gap in Pension Benefits
Employment-based pensions received by men typically are much higher than pensions received by women, but the gap is likely to narrow somewhat in the future, according to a study released Thursday.
The study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington found that 44.6 percent of men age 65 and older received an employment-based pension during 2006, with a median benefit of $17,200 annually. By contrast, only 28.4 percent of women received a pension, with a median benefit of $11,142 a year.
The reason for this gender disparity is that older women tend to spend less time in the workforce than their male counterparts, as well as have lower-paying jobs, according to the EBRI study. Those circumstances directly affect the size of their pension, since the benefit is largely based on income and years of service. Additionally, defined-benefit plans typically require employees to work five years before they are fully vested in a benefit.
While younger women still, on average, spend less time in the labor force than younger men and tend to earn less, today’s younger women on average will work longer than women who were 50 or older in 2006, according to the study.
As a result, younger women will be more likely to earn a pension and the amount they earn will increase over time as younger generations of women retire, the study found.
Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/32/35.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)