Court Opinion

ID: 9427014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:27.887195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:04.514986
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stewart,
concurring in the judgment.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq., forbids any employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee between the ages of 40 and 65 because of his age. 29 U. S. C. § 623 (a)(1). But the Act also expressly provides that it is not unlawful for an employer to observe the terms of a bona fide employee benefit plan, such as a retirement plan, so long as the plan is not a “subterfuge to evade the purposes” of the Act. § 623 (f)(2).
It is conceded that United’s retirement plan is bona fide. The only issue, then, is whether it is a “subterfuge to evade the purposes” of the Act. I think it is simply not possible for a bona fide retirement plan adopted long before the Act was even contemplated to be a “subterfuge” to “evade” either its terms or its purposes.
Since § 623 (f) (2) on its face makes United’s action under the retirement plan lawful, it is unnecessary to address any of the other questions discussed in the Court's opinion or by Mr. Justice White.