I. Whether the Fourth Circuit erroneously held that a
retroactive award of monetary relief is mandatory
under the ADEA in this pension case,
A. because the Fourth Circuit's holding is in conflictwith this Court's instructions in a trilogy of pensioncases not to award retroactive monetary reliefagainst pension plans;
B. because this Court has previously held that the
rules governing pension plans "should not beapplied retroactively unless the legislature hasplainly commanded that result" and there is nosuch legislative command in the ADEA;
C. because any award of retroactive monetary relief
in this case involves the complex review of andindividualized actuarial calculations for a class ofapproximately 12,000 pension beneficiaries, not the
relatively simple calculation of unpaid minimumwages or overtime compensation contemplated bythe enforcement provision of the FLSA;
D. because the ADEA's enforcement provision
provides that the district court had "jurisdiction togrant such legal and equitable relief as may beappropriate;"
E. because the broad grant of discretionary
authority in 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) has been repeatedlyconfirmed by the Circuit Courts of Appeal; and
F. because no other federal court has interpreted
the enforcement provision of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C.§ 626(b), as requiring that retroactive monetaryrelief be awarded for ADEA violations?

Whether the Fourth Circuit erroneously held that a retroactive award of monetary relief is mandatory under the ADEA in this pension case