Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-1106
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Benson Everett Legg, Senior District
Judge. (1:07-cv-02500-BEL)
Argued:
Decided:
this
employee
interlocutory
retirement
benefit
appeal,
plan
we
consider
(the
plan)
whether
an
maintained
by
rates
of
contribution
to
the
plan,
which
violate
the
ADEA,
holding
that
the
disparate
rates
were
years
age.
an
employee
would
work
before
reaching
retirement
regarding
retirement
eligibility,
namely,
that
an
of
the
employees
age.
Thus,
we
vacated
the
The
hold
determined
that
the
district
court
correctly
that
the
not
shield
discrimination. 1
the
County
from
liability
for
the
alleged
I.
In
1945,
the
County
established
mandatory
Employee
The County did not fully fund the plan but instead required
that employees contribute a certain fixed percentage of their
annual salaries over the course of their employment (employee
contribution rates or the rates).
contributions,
as
well
as
earnings
on
those
fund
the
remaining
one-half
of
the
pension
benefits.
To
employees
achieve
these
received
the
objectives
and
same
of
level
to
ensure
pension
that
all
benefits,
Buck
actuarial
factors,
including
anticipated
percentage
higher
percentage
contributions
younger
would
employees
recommended
rates
contribution
of
employees
plan.
age
of
earn
their
interest
salaries,
for
fewer
The
County
contributions.
and
the
at
determined
employee
the
time
shall
the
because
years
than
adopted
that
[t]he
be
determined
employee
actually
their
the
Bucks
rate
of
by
the
joins
the
County
modified
inception in 1945.
the
plan
several
times
since
its
County
also
added
an
alternative
term
of
retirement
of
service
irrespective
of
their
age.
Correctional
regardless
of
age,
or
at
age
65
with
years
of
service.
1990,
retirement
the
for
County
expanded
general
the
employees.
plan
Under
to
permit
this
early
provision,
employees who were at least 55 years old and who had completed
20 years of service could retire, but would receive a reduced
amount of pension benefits.
Despite
regarding
rates
many
retirement
were
between
the
amended
1945
and
changes
to
eligibility,
only
2007.
one
time
The
the
plan
the
employee
during
sole
over
the
the
contribution
relevant
adjustment
years
to
the
period
rates
increases
contributions.
to
the
rate
of
return
on
invested
plan
and
disparate
contribution
7
rates
discriminated
against
them
based
investigation
and,
on
their
ages.
The
after
the
parties
were
EEOC
conducted
unable
to
an
reach
Lee,
Bosse,
and
class
of
similarly
situated
County
those
paid
by
younger
employees.
The
EEOC
requested
In
response,
the
County
denied
that
the
plan
summary
granted
Cnty.,
judgment.
summary
593
F.
In
judgment
Supp.
2d
January
2009,
to
the
County.
797
(D.
Md.
the
2009).
district
EEOC
v.
court
Baltimore
Relying
on
the
554
U.S.
135
(2008),
the
district
court
concluded
that
the
rates
were
permissible
based
on
the
financial
Id. at 801-02.
v.
Baltimore
(unpublished
Cnty.,
opinion).
385
We
F.
Appx.
held
that
322
the
(4th
Cir.
district
See
2010)
courts
eligibility
irrespective
of
age.
Id.
at
325.
We
40, enrolled in the plan at the same time, both employees would
become
eligible
for
retirement
after
20
years
of
service,
Id.
Id.
We
case
for
disparate
rates
considerations.
On
remand,
district
were
court
supported
Therefore, we remanded
to
by
determine
whether
permissible
the
financial
Id.
after
conducting
additional
discovery,
the
On the
cause
of
the
disparate
treatment
was
age.
EEOC
v.
Baltimore Cnty., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149812 (D. Md. Oct. 17,
2012).
EEOC, holding that the County was liable for violating the ADEA.
Id. at *2.
II.
We review the district courts award of summary judgment de
novo.
Cir. 2013).
rather
than
employees
ages,
motivated
the
plans
of
money
disparate
rates,
County
remained
maintains
reasonable
that
the
justification
time
for
value
the
entirely
continued
to
by
the
County
subsidize
while
only
employee
the
contributions
age-based
benefits.
We disagree with
ADEA
prohibits
employers
from
refusing
to
hire,
29
29
U.S.C.
623(a)(1),
11
630(l).
Accordingly,
it
differently
from
younger
employees,
unless
the
employer
formal,
violates
facially
the
ADEA
discriminatory
either
by
policy
relying
requiring
on
adverse
motivated
by
an
employees
age.
Hazen
Paper
case,
the
EEOC
alleges
that
the
Countys
Co.
v.
In the
plan
was
facially discriminatory.
To prove facial discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff
is not required to prove an employers discriminatory animus. 6
Rather, a policy that explicitly discriminates based on age is
unlawful regardless of the employers intent.
544
U.S.
at
147-48
(stating
that
policy
that
facially
the
ADEA);
see
also
Intl
Union
v.
Johnson
Controls,
Title
VII
employment
sex
discrimination
practice
involves
challenge
disparate
that
[w]hether
treatment
an
through
explicit
facial
discrimination
does
not
depend
on
why
the
(2009)
(rejecting
mixed
motive
theory
of
liability
for
retirement
plan
for
state
employees
discriminated
Kentucky
plan
at
issue
Id. at 140.
permitted
certain
state
employee
Id. at 139.
became
disabled
qualifying
for
normal
calculation
of
pension
benefits.
13
Id.
at
139-40.
In
retirement
additional
years
benefits,
benefits.
of
service
the
to
plan
the
did
not
calculation
impute
of
any
pension
Id. at 140.
concluded
the
that
disparate
the
plan
treatment
did
not
between
The Court
violate
the
two
Id.
the
ADEA
classes
of
contrast
to
Kentuckys
plan,
which
treated
employees
the
Countys
plan
mandated
different
contribution
rates
the
district
court
in
the
present
case
was
not
Retirement
to
factors
were
not
germane
the
issue
before
the
district court.
We find no merit in the Countys argument that the employee
contribution rates lawfully were based on a reasonable factor
other than age, namely, the time value of money.
While this
employees
were
permitted
the
alternative
benefit
of
we
provided
in
our
initial
decision
continues
The
to
If a 20-year-
enrolled in the plan at the same time, and both employees chose
to
retire
after
contributed
20
larger
years
of
service,
percentage
of
his
the
older
annual
employee
salary
to
the
younger
employee.
This
disparity
in
the
employees
Countys
accordance
with
plan
the
required
age-based
that
rates
employees
regardless
contribute
whether
in
they
ADEAs
safe
(l)(1)(A)(ii)(I).
harbor
provision
in
29
U.S.C.
623
Id.
awarded
based
on
employees
years
of
service.
We
disagree.
Even if we assume, without deciding, that the service-based
pension
under
benefits
the
safe
qualified
harbor
as
an
provision,
early
we
retirement
conclude
that
benefit
the
safe
As
the
provision
permits
district
an
court
employer
to
observed,
subsidize
the
early
safe
harbor
retirement
age
at
the
time
of
plan
enrollment.
Thus,
we
III.
For these reasons, we hold that the district court did not
err in granting partial summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on
the issue of the Countys liability for maintaining a retirement
plan in violation of the ADEA.
AFFIRMED
17