United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018-04-11
Case and law context
Role: background; posture: appeal from pleading dismissal of pension amendment challenge; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/887/0799-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018 | Judicial impact requirement to identify a particular practice | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / meritsThe actual pension-accrual holding is under section 623(i), not the catalogue’s ordinary subsection (a)(2) impact route. No generic age-disparity merits outcome is inferred. | pension/section-623-i-compliance | He acknowledges that the plan as a whole, and the 2012 amendment, is age-neutral, for pension eligibility is distinct from age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_887.jsonl#/f3d/887/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [7646:7773] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1d379fb1c9ccccfd883302d5edad3f17267e485c766f39a3fdc557af10931dc1.The Northern Trust pension plan, both before and after the 2012 amendment, complies with § 623(i). Benefits depend on the number of years of credited service and the employee's salary, not on age.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_887.jsonl#/f3d/887/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [10329:10525] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1d379fb1c9ccccfd883302d5edad3f17267e485c766f39a3fdc557af10931dc1. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
In other words, a pension plan that complies with § 623(i) does not violate the ADEA.
/f3d/887/0799-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
In other words, a pension plan that complies with § 623(i) does not violate the ADEA.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_887.jsonl#/f3d/887/0799-01; Unicode character offsets [10243:10328] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1d379fb1c9ccccfd883302d5edad3f17267e485c766f39a3fdc557af10931dc1.These are conditional statutory qualifications, not an actuarial compliance finding. Teufel's pinned sentence supports (i)(4) compliance, not a freestanding f(2) defense. An (i)(1) assessment must examine all relevant (i)(2)-(10) conditions; this core formula does not independently model every hybrid-conversion violation.