The Economics of Gender Discrimination in Employee Fringe Benefits: Manhart Revisited
![handle is hein.journals/uclr49 and id is 503 raw text is: The Economics of Gender Discrimination in
Employee Fringe Benefits: Manhart
Revisited
George J. Benstont
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 generally prohibits employers from
discriminating on the basis of sex by paying employees of opposite
sexes unequal wages for equal work.1 Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individ-
ual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'2 The Supreme
t Professor of Accounting, Economics, and Finance, Graduate School of Management,
University of Rochester. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I was a policy-
holder elected trustee (1977-81) of the College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF), which
along with its senior organization, the Teachers Insurance and Annuities Association
(TIAA), is a principal codefendant in a number of lawsuits involving allegations of sex
discrimination in annuity programs. See infra note 7. My wife and I also are members of a
principal coplaintiff organization in these suits, the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), and we donate fairly heavily to the ACLU Foundation. In fact, we are likely to
be beneficiaries of a prohibition against sex-distinct annuity tables for TIAA-CREF annui-
ties, should the courts so rule, because we teach at perhaps the only university that does not
require that contributions to retirement funds be deposited in TIAA or CREF regular annu-
ity accounts. Since July 1976, we have put all our tax-deferred retirement contributions in
CREF Supplemental Retirement Accounts (SRAs), which can later be withdrawn or
rolled-over into other annuities rather than used to purchase TIAA-CREF annuities.
(TIAA-CREF pension plan annuities permit only up to 10% of the accumulations to be
withdrawn in cash at retirement.) If unisex annuity tables are mandated, my wife will
purchase a unisex annuity with her funds, thus taking advantage of receiving greater peri-
odic benefits than her actual life expectancy would allow, and I will withdraw my funds and
place them with an insurance company or group that uses male life expectancy tables to
calculate annuity payments. These latter annuity plans will be available to groups that do
not discriminate but are in fact populated by males. See the discussion infra notes 151-58
and accompanying text for further explanation.
1 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (1976). The section provides in pertinent part-
No [subject] employer ... shall discriminate ... between employees on the basis of
sex by paying wages to employees ... at a rate less than the rate at which he pays
wages to employees of the opposite sex ... for equal work on jobs the performance of
which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under
similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a se-
niority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity
or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.
I Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1976).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/uclr49&div=25&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Economics of Gender Discrimination in Employee Fringe Benefits: Manhart Revisited
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most