Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T15:49:43.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex Discrimination as “Actuarial Equality”: A Rejoinder to Kimball

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Douglas Laycock  and
Teresa A. Sullivan
Get access

Extract

Debate continues over the Supreme Court's decision in City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Manhart. As most readers of this article already know, Manhart held illegal an annuity plan in which both sexes would receive equal periodic benefits after retirement although women made larger contributions while working. In collaboration with two colleagues, we defended the decision in another journal.* Although we tried to answer all of Manhart's critics, much of our attention was devoted to our colleague Spencer Kimball, who had published the most thorough and powerful of the attacks on Manhart. He has now published a reply.4 In the interests of having the main arguments on both sides summarized in the same journal, and of correcting misimpressions about the nature and extent of our argument, we offer this comment.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Bar Foundation Research Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Winter 1981 , pp. 221 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1981 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 435 U.S. 702 (1978).Google Scholar

2 Brilmayer, Lea, Hekeler, Richard W., Laycock, Douglas, & Sullivan, Teresa A., Sex Discrimination in Employer-sponsored Insurance Plans; A Legal and Demographic Analysis, 47 U. Chi. L. Rev. 505 (1980).Google Scholar

3 Kimball, Spencer L., Reverse Sex Discrimination: Manhart, 1979 A.B.F. Res. J. 83.Google Scholar

4 Kimball, Spencer L., Reprise on Manhart, 1980 A.B.F. Res. J. 915.Google Scholar

5 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 508.Google Scholar

6 Id. at 508–23.Google Scholar

7 Id. at 508–11.Google Scholar

8 Id. at 511.Google Scholar

9 Id. at 522–23.Google Scholar

10 Id. at 514–22.Google Scholar

11 Id. at 524–39.Google Scholar

12 Id. at 524–26.Google Scholar

13 Id. at 526, 526–35.Google Scholar

14 Id. at 528–29.Google Scholar

15 Id. at 526–34. Thus, we relied on the long history of sex discrimination only to explain why the statutory policy against sex discrimination is so strong and admits of so few exceptions. We did not “point to the disabilities under which women have suffered historically as a reason for favoring them now,” as Kimball charges. Kimball, supra note 4, at 920.Google Scholar

16 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 533–34.Google Scholar

17 Id. at 534.Google Scholar

18 Kimball, supra note 4, at 918.Google Scholar

19 Id.Google Scholar

20 Id.Google Scholar

21 Id.Google Scholar

22 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 516–17.Google Scholar

23 Id. at 516.Google Scholar

24 Kimball, supra note 4, at 918.Google Scholar

25 Id.Google Scholar

26 See, e.g., Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 361 (1978) (Brennan, J., concurring in part).Google Scholar

27 See Kimball, supra note 4, at 915 (characterizing “protecting individuals from disparate treatment” as “the high moral ground,” and “concern about group equality” as the “low ground”). (Emphasis in original.) See also the emphasis on reverse discrimination in the title of Kimball's original article. Kimball, supra note 3, at 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 See Kimball, supra note 3, at 103–11.Google Scholar

29 Kimball, supra note 4, at 916.Google Scholar

30 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 511 n.26. We originally made this statement to explain the error in Kimball's claim that to consider a person's sex is to treat him more individually than to ignore it. Kimball, supra note 3, at 119. He repeats the claim in his response without acknowledging that we have already discussed it. Kimball, supra note 4, at 916.Google Scholar

31 See the example in Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 508.Google Scholar

32 Kimball, supra note 4, at 916.Google Scholar

33 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 513–14.Google Scholar

34 Kimball, supra note 4, at 917.Google Scholar

35 Id.Google Scholar

36 Id.Google Scholar

37 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 512–13.Google Scholar

38 Id. at 513 n.35.Google Scholar

39 Kimball, supra note 4, at 917.Google Scholar

40 See Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 513 n.33, 530–33, 539–59.Google Scholar

41 Id. at 513 n.33, 535; Kimball, supra note 3, at 107–8, 118–20.Google Scholar

42 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 542 n.182.Google Scholar

43 Id. at 512.Google Scholar

44 Id. at 507, 532, 538–40.Google Scholar

45 See id. at 539–40 nn.170 & 172 (collecting the literature).Google Scholar

46 Id. at 541.Google Scholar

47 Id. at 542–56.Google Scholar

48 Kimball, supra note 4, at 918–20.Google Scholar

49 Kimball, supra note 3, at 112–13.Google Scholar

50 Kimball, supra note 4, at 919.Google Scholar

51 Id.Google Scholar

52 Differences in mortality rates between the races exceed differences in mortality rates between the sexes in all age groups between 25 and 55. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, 1977, vol. 2, § 5: Life Tables at pp. 5–9 to 5–11, table 5–1 (Hyattsville, Md., 1980).Google Scholar

53 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 540.Google Scholar

54 See text at note 17 supra.Google Scholar

55 U.S., Public Health Service, supra note 52, at 5–10 to 5–11.Google Scholar

56 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 540 n.175. Kimball misread this statement, taking it to mean that accurate data would show no race differences at all among the elderly. Kimball, supra note 4, at 919. There is no basis for his assumption about what accurate data would show; it might be that whites would maintain their advantage over blacks at all ages.Google Scholar

57 Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 551–59.Google Scholar

58 Kimball, supra note 4, at 919.Google Scholar

59 U.S., Public Health Service, supra note 52, at 5–15.Google Scholar

60 Kimball, supra note 3, at 136.Google Scholar

61 See, e.g., Spirt v. TIAA, 475 F. Supp. 1298, 1316–18 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).Google Scholar

62 See Brilmayer et al., supra note 2, at 558.Google Scholar

63 See, e.g., Peters v. Wayne State Univ., 476 F. Supp. 1343, 1350–51 (E.D. Mich. 1979); Spirt v. TIAA, 475 F. Supp. 1298, 1301–4 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).Google Scholar

64 Kimball, supra note 4, at 917–18.Google Scholar

65 See Kimball, supra note 3, at 92–93 n.27.Google Scholar

66 H.R. 100, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981).Google Scholar