Petitioners also emph size that a worker taking part in the Arizona plan can elect to get a lump-sum payment upon your retirement and then “purchase the largest advantages which their accumulated efforts could command in the great outdoors market. ” The truth that the lump-sum option allows it has no bearing, nonetheless, on whether petitioners have actually discriminated due to intercourse in providing an annuity substitute for its workers. It is no defense to discrimination in the provision of a fringe benefit that another fringe benefit is provided on a nondiscriminatory basis as we have pointed out above, ante, at note 10.
Although petitioners contended in the Court of Appeals that their conduct had been exempted through the reach of Title VII because of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 33, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1011 et seq., they usually have made no mention of this Act in a choice of their petition for certiorari or their brief in the merits. “Only into the many exemplary cases will we give consideration to problems maybe maybe not raised within the petition, ” Stone v. Continue Reading