Matter of James v. VDRNC, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when an employer adopts a fringe benefit plan, \[t]he fact that the plan is operated by a private insurance company rather than Arizona does not render [relevant Title VII authority] less controlling.\
• holding that when an employer adopts a fringe benefit plan, “[t]he fact that the plan is operated by a private insurance company rather than Arizona does not render [relevant Title VII authority] less controlling.”
• holding that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits differences in the amount of pension benefits paid to men and women, even though sex-based actuarial tables show that women in the aggregate live longer than men
• holding that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits differences in the amount of pension benefits paid to men and women, even though sex-based actuarial tables show that women in the aggregate live longer than men
• noting that the PDA buttresses the finding “that the greater cost of providing retirement benefits for women as a class cannot justify differential treatment based on sex”
• drawing on Manhart and Norris to conclude employees stated a claim against county employer under ADEA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).