Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site hplabsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabsb!pc
From: pc@hplabsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Supreme Court decision
Message-ID: <1721@hplabsb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Jul-83 14:01:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsb.1721
Posted: Thu Jul  7 14:01:19 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Jul-83 15:38:07 EDT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 34


 
	For those of you who missed the news: the Supreme Court has
	ruled that discrimination on the basis of sex in pension
	payments is unconstitutional.  As pointed out by the media,
	this may be the impetus for an overhaul in the insurance
	industry's actuarial practices.

	For those who've never been sure what the broohaha has been
	about:  Women have been charged higher rates for insurance
	and have received lower monthly payments for pension plans
	based on the statistic that women (on the average) live
	longer than men.  We have laws which guarantee that there will
	not be discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion,
	age or national origin in such matters.  For those who still
	think it would be fair to charge a woman more or give her
	less because STATISTICALLY she is likely to outlive her
	male counterpart:  This amounts to discriminating against
	an individual based on some generalization about members of
	the group. 

	If in the above paragraph you substitute another group 
	classification (Black, Jew, Hispanic), it seems to make
	the point clearer to some folk.

	Remember: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied
	or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
	sex.

						Patricia Collins
						hplabs