The future role of the "bona fide plan" exemption in ADEA benefits discrimination litigation.
For more than twenty years, administrative agencies have concluded that the ADEA prohibited employers from reducing the level of fringe benefits provided to older employees without proving that the cost of funding the reduced benefits was essentially the same as the cost of the benefits provided to younger workers. In Public Employees Retirement System v. Betts, 109 S.Ct. 2854 (1989), the Supreme Court invalidated this "cost-justification" requirement. Almost immediately, Senator John Heinz (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to overturn the Betts ruling. This article addresses the question of whether, as suggested by Senator Heinz, Betts sanctions "baseless" benefits discrimination, or whether employers should be somewhat more cautious before deciding to eliminate or reduce the fringe benefits provided to their older employees.
D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D006264:Health Benefit Plans, Employee / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D007348:Insurance, Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008875:Middle Aged; D012179:Retirement / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012456:Salaries and Fringe Benefits / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States