Almost a year has gone by since the EEOC originally announced its approval of a proposal to allow employers to coordinate retiree health benefit plans with eligibility for Medicare or a comparable state health benefit without violating the ADEA. Since that time, AARP filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the agency from issuing the proposed rule. The plaintiffs in AARP v. EEOC, No. 2:05-cv-00509, argued that the EEOC had exceeded its statutory authority to implement the exemption. The EEOC had agreed to a 60-day hold on issuing the final rule due to the litigation.
You can access the Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in the case from the American Benefits Council website via Benefitslink.com. Defendant argues in part as follows:
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the EEOC’s proposed exemption is contrary to law or that the exemption is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment should be denied, and for the reasons explained herein and in Defendant’s previous filings, judgment should be entered in favor of the EEOC…Given that Congress has expressly authorized the EEOC to issue exemptions to permit activity that otherwise would be prohibited by the ADEA, the relevant inquiry for the Court is whether the proposed exemption is “reasonable” and “necessary and proper in the public interest.” 29 U.S.C. § 628. As is evident from the Administrative Record before the Court, the EEOC’s decision to establish an exemption for the practice of coordinating retiree health benefits with Medicare eligibility was reasonable and in the public interest, and therefore satisfied the requirements of Section 9. See Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 27-40 (“The EEOC’s Decision to Exempt from the ADEA the Practice of Coordinating Employer-Sponsored Retiree Health Benefits with Medicare Eligibility is Not Arbitrary and Capricious”). Plaintiffs’ claims to the contrary represent nothing other than their disagreement with the considered judgment of the EEOC.
A ruling is expected next week. At the recent SHRM Employment Law & Legislative Conference held two weeks ago, Naomi Churchill Earp, Vice Chair of the EEOC, gave a presentation in which she mentioned the case, but stated that she could not comment on it.
For more background on the case: