Does an employer violate ERISA's anti-cutback rule by amending its defined benefit plan in a manner that freezes the promised growth of previously-accrued benefits, and thereby reduces the value of benefits attributable to service its employees have already provided?

Does the disparate impact theory of age discrimination liability, recognized by this Court in Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), apply to pension plan changes that uniquely reduce the benefits and compensation of older workers?

Does an employer violate ERISA's anti-cutback rule by amending its defined benefit plan in a manner that freezes the promised growth of previously-accrued benefits, and thereby reduces the value of benefits attributable to service its employees have already provided?