SCOTUS: AARP v. EEOC’s ADEA DQ’d

Clearly a statement about the overuse of acronyms, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in a case between the American Association of Retired Persons and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The AARP petitioned after the 3th Circuit upheld a Commission rule that employers can offer reduced healthcare to older workers and retirees once they are Medicare-eligible, without violating the ADEA. The Supremes denied the petition Monday.

For it’s part, the AARP was none too pleased. AARP Legislative Policy Director David Certner, via On the Hill:

Beyond blatant age discrimination, the new policy is an ineffective Band-aid for the bigger issue facing American employers and workers: the skyrocketing cost of health care,” Certner says. “By allowing employers to reduce or even eliminate health benefits for retirees when they reach age 65, this rule essentially shifts the costs of all retiree health care on to the backs of older retirees.

“Blatant age discrimination” against retirees? You know who else has trouble finding affordable healthcare? Everyone who is still working. You knew when the boomers got in there they’d start fighting each other. Here’s my legal analysis: not letting employers adjust healthcare rates for the Medicare-eligible makes as much sense as me suing Hooters for discrimination when it rejected my application as a waitress. I mean if. If it rejected my hypothetical application.

Whatever, you get it. Just because something’s not equal doesn’t mean it’s not fair. Incidentally, the rule was promulgated at the insistance of labor groups and other associations, who feared that employers would reduce retiree health benefits across the board if they couldn’t take Medicare eligibility into account.

Still, it’s a funny, fickle Court they’re running out east. Six months ago, it seemed you couldn’t get into the place if you were under 55.