Retirement benefits has been a hot topic in recent times. This news adds to the fire. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA's protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training.

We all know that older people use many healthcare benefits than younger people. Employers have only a limited budget allocated for employee benefits. They are working with a fixed amount. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that employers can create two classes of retirees - those younger than age 65 and those older than 65 -- and offer different benefits to each group. In addition, the ruling allows employers to eliminate or reduce benefits provided to spouses or dependents of retirees older than 65.

If employers spend too much on people over 65, they would not have enough money in their retirement bucket to provide these benefits for future generations. At the same time, is it ethical or legal to discriminate against people based on age? The only good thing about this is that by deploying this tactic, many employers would be able to provide retirement coverage for a little longer. The US Supreme Court declining the challenge to this rule is a little concerning though.

What do you think?