Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site ihuxk.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!we13!ihnp4!ihuxk!rs55611 From: rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Supreme Court decision Message-ID: <390@ihuxk.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Jul-83 12:44:36 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxk.390 Posted: Fri Jul 15 12:44:36 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Jul-83 21:00:46 EDT References: <984@uwvax.UUCP> Organization: BTL Naperville, Il. Lines: 17 Here's an interesting note on the Supreme Court pension benefits case, based on my recollection of a column in the Chicago Tribune (Jane Bryant Quinn (spelling?), I think): The company that was being sued in the case has since modified their pension plan to be legal. Instead of making the lifetime benefits payments equal for both sexes, they converted the plans to have a fixed-year payout. In this type of plan, benefits are payed out for a fixed number of years to the pensionee. If the person dies before payments have been completed, the remainder goes to the estate, either in continued payments, or a lump-sum distribution. This type of plan does not discriminate, and also doesn't try to "overcome" the statistical life expectancy charts. This is a good solution for pension benefits, but of course does not directly apply to related areas like life insurance or car insurance rates. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611