October Term 2007 · Docket 06-1037
Does Kentucky's disability pension formula violate federal age discrimination law?
Kentucky calculates disability pensions using age. The EEOC claims this practice discriminates against older workers.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Klausner stated that Kentucky retirement eligibility relies on twenty years of service or age fifty-five.
He argued that age is not a negative concept in this context.
He cited Justice White's view that all retirement plans distinguish based on age.
Justice Breyer questioned the factual basis of the pension calculation differences between workers with ten and twenty years of service.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Kentucky sets retirement eligibility based on twenty years of service or age fifty-five. The state argues age is a standard factor in all retirement plans. The EEOC contends Kentucky uses age to disadvantage older disabled employees. The Court must decide if this specific calculation method violates federal law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 9, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Kentucky wants the Court to reverse the lower court judgment.
The EEOC wants the Court to affirm the lower court judgment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
What each side says
Kentucky argues age is a necessary factor in all retirement plans.
The EEOC argues Kentucky explicitly uses age to disadvantage older workers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
What the justices asked
Justice Breyer asked if a worker with twenty years of service receives more than one with ten.
Justice Breyer asked if the state credits a disabled worker with twenty years of service.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-41
Why it matters
This case defines how states calculate disability pensions. It determines whether age can serve as a factor in these calculations. The outcome affects the financial security of disabled public employees nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-41
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-5
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.