Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
United States Supreme Court
554 U.S. 135 (2008)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Kentucky (defendant) established a retirement benefit plan for employees, such as law-enforcement officers and firefighters, who were in hazardous jobs. Employees became eligible for benefits in two ways: (1) after 20 years of service or (2) after five years of service and reaching the age of 55. The plan calculated benefits for both methods by multiplying final pay before retirement and years of service by 2.5 percent. There was also a special method of eligibility for employees who became disabled before being eligible under the two regular methods. Under the special method, if an employee became disabled before he was eligible for benefits, the plan would impute the years of service until the employee would be eligible. An employee with 18 years of service became disabled at age 61. The plan imputed no additional years of service in calculating the employee’s benefits because the employee had already become eligible for benefits at the time of his disability. The employee brought the matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff), which sued Kentucky. The EEOC claimed that because the employee would have been imputed additional years of service (thus increasing his retirement benefits) had he become disabled before the age of 55, the plan violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
Dissent (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.