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