Peters v. Wayne State University, 691 F. 2d 235 (1981), cert. Pending, No. 82-794.
Its unimportant that feminine employees in Manhart had been expected to be involved in the retirement plan, whereas involvement when you look at the Arizona deferred compensation plan is voluntary. Title VII forbids all discrimination concerning “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of work, ” not only discrimination concerning those facets of the work relationship as to which no choice is had by the emp oyee. Its likewise unimportant that the Arizona plan includes two options—the option that is lump-sum the fixed-sum-for-a-fixed-period option—that are offered on equal terms to gents and ladies. A manager which provides one fringe advantage for a discriminatory foundation cannot escape obligation because he offers other benefits for a nondiscriminatory foundation. Cf. Mississippi University for ladies v. Hogan, — U.S. —-, —-, n. 8, 102 S. Ct. 3331, 3336, n. 8, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1090 (1982).
The present actuarial value of an annuity policy depends upon multiplying the value that is presentin this instance, the worthiness at the time of the worker’s your your your retirement) of every payment per month guaranteed by the probability, which can be furnished by an actuarial dining table, that the annuitant will live to get that payment. Continue reading