In the case of EEOC v. Baltimore County, et al (case
no. BEL-07-2500), the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a district court's grant of
partial summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), finding that Baltimore County maintained a
retirement plan that was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA), and remanded the case for further proceedings on the issue of
The appellate court rejected Baltimore County’s argument
that the Supreme Court decision in Kentucky Retirement v. EEOC excused the
pension practice. The 4th Circuit noted that unlike Kentucky’s retirement plan,
which treated employees differently based on their pension status rather than
on their age, Baltimore County’s plan “mandated different contribution rates
that escalated explicitly in accordance with employees’ ages at the time of
their enrollment in the plan.”
The EEOC filed its suit in September 2007, alleging that Baltimore
County discriminated against Wayne A. Lee, Richard J. Bosse, Sr., and a class
of similarly situated employees at least 40 years of age by requiring them to
pay higher pension contributions than those paid by younger employees for the
same pension benefits, based on their ages at hire. The EEOC also named various
county labor organizations as defendants because they must negotiate with the county
to effectuate the changes sought in its lawsuit.
The district court initially awarded summary judgment to Baltimore
County, but the 4th Circuit Court vacated that decision upon appeal by the EEOC.
On remand following the first appeal, the district court concluded that the pension
plan violated the ADEA, and awarded partial summary judgment in favor of the
EEOC (see “Court
Finds Baltimore County Pension Plan Discriminatory”). Baltimore County then
filed its own appeal.
The most-recent ruling by the 4th Circuit is here.