(a)(1) As originally enacted in 1967, section 4(f)(2) of the Act provided:
It shall not be unlawful * * * to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system or any bona fide employee benefit plan such as a retirement, pension, or insurance plan, which is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this Act, except that no such employee benefit plan shall excuse the failure to hire any individual * * *.
The Department of Labor interpreted the provision as “Authoriz[ing] involuntary retirement irrespective of age: Provided, That such retirement is pursuant to the terms of a retirement or pension plan meeting the requirements of section 4(f)(2).” See 34 FR 9709 (June 21, 1969). The Department took the position that in order to meet the requirements of section 4(f)(2), the involuntary retirement provision had to be (i) contained in a bona fide pension or retirement plan, (ii) required by the terms of the plan and not optional, and (iii) essential to the plan's economic survival or to some other legitimate business purpose—i.e., the provision was not in the plan as the result of arbitrary discrimination on the basis of age.
(2) As revised by the 1978 amendments, section 4(f)(2) was amended by adding the following clause at the end:
and no such seniority system or employee benefit plan shall require or permit the involuntary retirement of any individual specified by section 12(a) of this Act because of the age of such individual * * *.
The Conference Committee Report expressly states that this amendment is intended “to make absolutely clear one of the original purposes of this provision, namely, that the exception does not authorize an employer to require or permit involuntary retirement of an employee within the protected age group on account of age” (H.R. Rept. No. 95-950, p. 8).
(b)(1) The amendment applies to all new and existing seniority systems and employee benefit plans. Accordingly, any system or plan provision requiring or permitting involuntary retirement is unlawful, regardless of whether the provision antedates the 1967 Act or the 1978 amendments.
(2) Where lawsuits pending on the date of enactment (April 6, 1978) or filed thereafter challenge involuntary retirements which occurred either before or after that date, the amendment applies.
(c)(1) The amendment protects all individuals covered by section 12(a) of the Act. Section 12(a) was amended in October of 1986 by the Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. 99-592, 100 Stat. 3342 (1986), which removed the age 70 limit. Section 12(a) provides that the Act's prohibitions shall be limited to individuals who are at least forty years of age. Accordingly, unless a specific exemption applies, an employer can no longer force retirement or otherwise discriminate on the basis of age against an individual because (s)he is 70 or older.
(2) The amendment to section 12(a) of the Act became effective on January 1, 1987, except with respect to any employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement containing a provision that would be superseded by such amendment that was in effect on June 30, 1986, and which terminates after January 1, 1987. In that case, the amendment is effective on the termination of the agreement or January 1, 1990, whichever comes first.
(d) Neither section 4(f)(2) nor any other provision of the Act makes it unlawful for a plan to permit individuals to elect early retirement at a specified age at their own option. Nor is it unlawful for a plan to require early retirement for reasons other than age.
[46 FR 47726, Sept. 29, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 23811, June 25, 1987; 53 FR 5973, Feb. 29, 1988]
Notes of Decisions
Robert R. Henn v. Nat'l Geographic Soc'y, 819 F.2d 824 (7th Cir. 1987).
· cites it 2× “In characterizing retirement under an early retirement program as presumptively discriminatory, Paolillo overlooked the regulation governing early retirement plans, 29 C.F.R. § 1625.9 (f). This provides: “Neither section 4(f)(2) nor any other provi *828 sion of the Act makes it…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Chrysler Corp., 546 F. Supp. 54 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Final Interpretations, 29 CFR 1625.9(f), 46 FR 47728 . The Court is aware of the heavy burden of proof on a plaintiff who seeks mandatory relief such as reinstatement rather than relief which maintains the status quo.”
Carl R. Pitasi v. Gartner Grp., Inc., 184 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 1999).
“§ 623 (f)(2)(B)(ii); 29 C.F.R. § 1625.9 . We have made clear that neither retirement nor offers of early-retirement incentives support an inference of age discrimination and that it is the conditions surrounding the offer, rather than the offer of early retirement, that count in…”
Houghton v. SIPCO, Inc., 38 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1994).
“1987); 29 C.F.R. § 1625.9 (f). For the same reason, there can be no constructive discharge liability for announcing in advance a retirement benefits reduction permissible under ERISA, and also offering older employees an early retirement option not available to younger employees.”
Cipriano v. Bd. of Educ. of North Tonawanda, NY, 700 F. Supp. 1199 (W.D.N.Y. 1988).
“29 C.F.R. § 1625.9 (d) (1988). It is undisputed in the instant case, and the Second Circuit so found, that the incentive plan adopted by defendants excluded plaintiffs because of their age, and thus plaintiffs have established a prima facie case requiring defendants to satisfy §…”
Cipriano v. Bd. of Educ., 785 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Beyond this, 29 C.F.R. § 1625.9 (f) of the interpretive regulations issued by the EEOC, to which enforcement of the ADEA was transferred from the Department of Labor in 1979, provides in part: Neither section 4(f)(2) nor any other provision of the Act makes it unlawful for a…”
Cook v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 771 F.2d 635 (2d Cir. 1985).
“The criterion for determining whether a seniority system is a “bona fide” one is stated in the pertinent regulation issued under the Act, 29 C.F.R. § 1625.9 (a) (1984), which provides that “[tjhough a seniority system may be qualified by such factors as merit, capacity, or…”
Knight v. Georgia, 992 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1993).
“§ 630 (b) (1968), but that exception was removed by a 1974 amendment. Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974, Pub.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1625.9(f) — 1 case
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Chrysler Corp., 546 F. Supp. 54 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
“Final Interpretations, 29 CFR 1625.9(f), 46 FR 47728 . The Court is aware of the heavy burden of proof on a plaintiff who seeks mandatory relief such as reinstatement rather than relief which maintains the status quo.”
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.