Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, 554 U.S. 135 (2008)

In Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, the underlying dispute arose from the Commonwealth of Kentucky's retirement plan for state and county employees in hazardous positions, such as police officers and firefighters. The plan allowed these employees to retire and receive normal retirement benefits after either 20 years of service or after 5 years of service if they reached the age of 55. Additionally, the plan provided for disability retirement benefits for employees who became seriously disabled before qualifying for normal retirement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) contended that the retirement plan discriminated against older workers by treating disabled employees who became eligible for retirement based on age less favorably than those who became disabled before reaching retirement eligibility. The procedural history of the case began when the EEOC filed a charge against Kentucky Retirement Systems, asserting that the retirement plan's provisions violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which ruled in favor of the EEOC. Kentucky Retirement Systems then sought a writ of certiorari, leading to the Supreme Court's review of the case. The relevant background context includes the specific provisions of Kentucky's retirement plan that allowed for the calculation of benefits based on imputed years of service for disabled employees. This calculation was designed to ensure that disabled workers received benefits comparable to those who could retire normally. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the plan's treatment of disabled employees constituted age discrimination under the ADEA, ultimately concluding that it did not.

Whether Kentucky's retirement system discriminates against employees who become disabled after reaching retirement age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and the case is remanded for a determination whether the State can assert a cost-justification defense.