(a) “Fringe benefits” includes, e.g., such terms as medical, hospital, accident, life insurance and retirement benefits; profit sharing and bonus plans; leave; and other such concepts.
(b) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate between men and women performing equal work with regard to fringe benefits. Differences in the application of fringe benefit plans which are based upon sex-based actuarial studies cannot be justified as based on “any other factor other than sex.”
(c) Where an employer conditions benefits available to employees and their spouses and families on whether the employee is the “head of the household” or “principal wage earner” in the family unit, the overall implementation of the plan will be closely scrutinized.
(d) It is unlawful for an employer to make available benefits for the spouses or families of employees of one gender where the same benefits are not made available for the spouses or families of opposite gender employees.
(e) It shall not be a defense under the EPA to a charge of sex discrimination in benefits that the cost of such benefits is greater with respect to one sex than the other.
(f) It is unlawful for an employer to have a pension or retirement plan which, with respect to benefits, establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex or which otherwise differentiates in benefits on the basis of sex.
[51 FR 29816, Aug. 20, 1986; 51 FR 32636, Sept. 15, 1986]
Notes of Decisions
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 843 F.2d 249 (6th Cir. 1988).
“The examples of free parking and health clubs with which the court attempts to *255 illustrate the difficulty of applying close scrutiny to fringe benefits policies are, I respectfully suggest, misplaced.”
Perdue v. City Univ. of New York, 13 F. Supp. 2d 326 (E.D.N.Y 1998).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.11 . 1. Back Wages As discussed above, Perdue’s back wages for the period from September 1,1990 to July 9, 1992, should be based upon the wages paid to both Kestenbaum and Reiner.”
Arthur v. Coll. of St. Benedict, 174 F. Supp. 2d 968 (D. Minnesota 2001).
“29 C.F.R. § 1620.11 . Defendants do not dispute that each college’s professors perform approximately equivalent work and receive comparable salaries at each institution.”
Offereins v. Discover Fin. Servs. (N.D. Ill. 2025).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1620.11 (a). The complaint here alleges that more than sixty percent of Offereins’ compensation came from incentives and bonuses.”
Carter v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 870 F. Supp. 1438 (S.D. Ohio 1994).
“Fringe benefits are defined to included such things as “medical, hospital, accident, life insurance and retirement benefits29 C.F.R. 1620.11 (1981) (emphasis added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.