Citation network
Public Emp. Retirement Sys. Vs. Betts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1989
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 158 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Public Emp. Retirement Sys. v. BettsSearch
-
U.S. 158 (1989) Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. BettsSearch
-
or establish a substantial business purpose. The court rejected PERS' reliance on United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMannSearch
-
on its face, in that it denied disability retirement benefits to certain employees on account of their age. Betts v. HamiltonSearch
-
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Betts v. HamiltonSearch
-
Id. at 694. The Page 492 U. S. 165 majority rejected PERS' reliance on United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMannSearch
-
Noting that PERS' plan was adopted long before enactment of the ADEA, he argued that under United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMannSearch
-
f)(2) in United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMannSearch
-
thereof) to an earlier statute is of little assistance in discerning the meaning of that statute. See Weinberger v. RossiSearch
-
Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTESearch
-
United States v. SouthwesternSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Rainwater v. UnitedSearch
-
that, as a result, an employee benefit plan adopted prior to enactment of the ADEA cannot be a subterfuge. See EEOC v. CargillSearch
-
EEOC v. CountySearch
-
age-based disparity caused by the pre-Act age limitation, McMann does not insulate it from challenge. See EEOC v. CargillSearch
-
EEOC v. HomeSearch
-
Cipriano v. BoardSearch
-
ADEA by the agencies responsible for the Act's enforcement, and is therefore entitled to special deference. See EEOC v. AssociatedSearch
-
See also Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
language of the subterfuge requirement, however, this reliance on legislative history is misplaced. See Davis v. MichiganSearch
-
f)(2) to those plans which have a cost justification for all age-based differentials in benefits. See EEOC v. WestinghouseSearch
-
EEOC v. Borden'sSearch
-
U. S. 175 circumstances, this aspect of the EEOC's argument is entitled to little, if any, deference. Cf. Bowen v. GeorgetownSearch
-
Lorance v. AT&TSearch
-
Technologies, Inc., 490 U. S. 900 , 490 U. S. 908 (1989) (quoting Franks Page 492 U. S. 182 v. BowmanSearch
-
an opportunity to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on this issue. See Celotex Corp. v. CatrettSearch
-
provision by looking to its text, and, if the statutory language is unclear, to its legislative history. Blum v. StensonSearch
-
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. BowenSearch
-
Corp. v. CartierSearch
-
and did not intend categorically to immunize benefit plans from liability for unjustified discrimination. See FEA v. AlgonquinSearch
-
to enforcement agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions. See Western Air Lines, Inc. v. CriswellSearch
-
Co. v. GilbertSearch
-
I agree with the majority that neither our decision in United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMannSearch
-
the burden on the employer to show that the discrimination was not born of improper intent. See Wards Cove Packing Co. v. AntonioSearch
-
See Betts v. HamiltonSearch
-
Karlen v. CitySearch
-
Cipriano v. BoardSearch
-
EEOC v. WestinghouseSearch
-
requirement was, if anything, confirmed in 1978, when Congress added a clause in response to United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMannSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Public Emp. Retirement Sys. v. BettsSearch
-
Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. BettsSearch
-
Betts v. HamiltonSearch
-
See Weinberger v. RossiSearch
-
See EEOC v. CargillSearch
-
See EEOC v. AssociatedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial