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