Retired Public Employees' Ass'n v. California

In Los Angeles Department of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 , 98 S.Ct. 1370 , 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978), the Supreme Court held that payment of benefits to retired public employees in amounts that vary according to the sex of the retiree constitutes impermissible sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The question in these cases presented to the Court by cross-motions for summary judgment in the Retired Public Employees’ case and by plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the Gunn case is whether the State of California through its Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”) can lawfully continue this payment procedure proscribed by the Supreme Court in 1978.

This question, answered in the negative by Judge Ingram of this Court, and affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Retired Public Employees’ Ass’n of California v. State of California, 677 F.2d 733 (9th Cir.1982), vacated, 463 U.S. 1222 , 103 S.Ct. 3565 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1406 (1983), is again posed to this 'Court for review in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred…