CiteLaw

Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 463 U.S. 1073, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1236, 103 S. Ct. 3492, 51 U.S.L.W. 5243, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,696, 52 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5292, 4 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1633, 32 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 233, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 8, SCDB 1982-164

Decision Date: 7/6/1983

Docket Number: No. 82-52

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1236, 103 S. Ct. 3492, 51 U.S.L.W. 5243, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,696, 52 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5292, 4 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1633, 32 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 233, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 8, SCDB 1982-164 (1983)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1983

ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE FOR TAX DEFERRED ANNUITY AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS et al. v. NORRIS

Judges

  • with whom Justice Brennan, Justice White, and Justice Stevens join, and with whom Justice O’Connor joins as to Parts I, II, and III, concurring in the judgment in part.
  • with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Rehnquist join, dissenting in part and concurring in part, and with whom Justice O’Connor joins as to Part III.

Attorneys

  • John L. Endicott, Special Assistant Attorney General of Arizona, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General, and John L. Jones, Assistant Attorney General.
  • Amy Jo Gittler argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Neal J. Beets
majority Per Curiam.

Petitioners in this case administer a deferred compensation plan for employees of the State of Arizona. The respondent class consists of all female employees who are enrolled in the plan or will enroll in the plan in the future. Certiorari was granted to decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), prohibits an employer from offering its employees the option of receiving retirement benefits from one of several companies selected by the employer, all of which pay lower monthly retirement benefits to a woman than to a man who has made the same contributions; and whether, if so, the relief awarded by the District Court was proper. 459 U. S. 904 (1982). The Court holds that this practice does constitute discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, and that all retirement benefits derived from contributions made after the decision today must be calculated without regard to the sex of the beneficiary. This position is expressed in Parts I, II, and III of the opinion of Justice Marshall, post, at this page and 1076-1091, which are joined by Justice Brennan, Justice White, Justice Stevens, and Justice O’Connor. The Court further holds that benefits derived from contributions made prior to this decision may be calculated as provided by the existing terms of the Arizona plan. This position is expressed in Part III of the opinion of Justice Powell, post, at 1105, which is joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Blackmun, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O’Connor. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Clerk is directed to issue the judgment August 1, 1983.

It is so ordered.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.

Sign up free Open in CiteLaw