Florida v. Long (SCOTUS 1988), 487 U.S. 223

Summary

The Court held that the decision invalidating sex-based pension contributions did not clearly establish that employer-operated pension benefits also had to be calculated without sex-based actuarial tables. The later decision addressing unequal benefit payments supplied the controlling date for liability, and retirees who retired before that date were not entitled to increased future benefits because such adjustments were retroactive in substance. Justice Stevens, dissenting, would have permitted prospective increases for preexisting retirees, while Justice Blackmun, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have allowed relief for retirees who retired after the earlier contribution decision.

Holding

Notice and controlling liability date. The earlier decision did not resolve whether employer-operated pension plans had to provide sex-neutral benefit payments and did not give employers sufficient notice that such benefits were covered. The later decision was the first definitive ruling on unequal pension benefits and therefore supplies the controlling liability date.

Relief for retirees who retired before the controlling liability date. Retirees who retired before the effective date of the later benefit-payment decision are not entitled to retroactive compensation or adjusted future benefit payments under the claims presented.

Continuing-violation theory for pension payments. Payments made under a pension benefit fixed at retirement do not constitute a continuing violation merely because the discriminatory payment structure continues after retirement.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities