Benefits August 25, 2003

Caution Greets Italian Pension Reform Provision

August 25, 2003 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Conservative allies of Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi were cautious Monday about Berlusconi's proposal to reform Italy's pension system by raising the retirement age five years.
Reported by

The premier said in an interview published Sunday that Italy “needs to raise the retirement age by five years,” the Associated Press reported. “In Italy people retire at an average of 57,” he told the newspaper Libero. “How can one stop working at such a young age?”

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

With Italy’s aging population and declining birth rate, pension reform has been an important, but thorny issue for governments in the last decade.

Under current legislation, workers with 35 years on the job can retire if they are at least 57. Berlusconi has insisted the reform is necessary because Italy’s older population is putting an unsustainable strain on state coffers. International organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the European Union have also pressured Italy to rein in its deficit.

“We start off every year with a 70-trillion lire ($39 billion) pension deficit,” Berlusconi said, according to the AP. However, he added, he wanted to get the backing of his two key allies, National Alliance and the Northern League. “I will convince them,” he told Libero. “On September 1, I will lay down some very strict conditions.”

Both allies reacted cautiously to the retirementp-age change suggestion. For his part, Labor Minister Roberto Maroni, a top League official, said he agreed with the premier’s proposal on principle, but added the reform should introduce “incentives” to keep people working five years longer. He ruled out any reform forcing workers to stay.

Meanwhile, National Alliance’s Ignazio La Russa warned the matter would not be solved in the first two weeks of September. He also noted that unions, which have already announced their opposition to the plan, would have to be dealt with. “If they upset our pension system, we’ll fight against it,” said Savino Pezzotta, leader of the CISL union.

Compliance August 22, 2003

Court: Blind in One Eye Is Not "Disabled" for ADA

August 22, 2003 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A former salesman of iron boilers who suffered blindness in one eye isn't entitled to protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) absent proof of a major impact on his everyday life activities
Reported by

>In his ruling that monocular vision “is not a per se disability,” US District Judge Bruce Kauffman said plaintiff Wesley Congleton didn’t convince the court that this his vision problems rose to the requisite level to qualify for ADA coverage, the Legal Intelligencer reported.

Kauffman noted the condition results in a lack of depth perception and a limited field of vision. However, he said those who suffer from it are often able to compensate through adjustments in the brain and by turning their heads. In the plaintiff’s case, Kauffman found that Congleton lacks depth perception, has a limited field of vision, has no peripheral vision on his left side and cannot see objects on his left side clearly.

Learned to Compensate

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

However, the court found that Congleton “must have learned to compensate for these impairments because, at the time he returned to work in September 1999, he could drive a car, watch television, read, and perform his normal daily activities.” Further, the court pointed out that Congleton testified in a pre-trial deposition that he needs no accommodation to perform the tasks required by his job.

“In fact, plaintiff has failed to identify any daily activity that his condition prevents or substantially limits him from doing,” Kauffman wrote in the ruling.

Damaged Goods?

Kauffman also rejected Congleton’s claim that he was “regarded as” disabled, finding that the comments of his bosses showed only that they were concerned about his condition, and not that they considered it truly disabling.

“The fact that supervisors express concern for an employee’s health does not necessarily mean that they consider a condition to be a substantial limitation to a major life activity,” Kauffman wrote.
 
According to court papers, Congleton began working as a sales representative for Weil-McLain, a manufacturer of cast iron boilers in 1994. Five years later, he began experiencing problems with his vision and was diagnosed with a detached retina. Forced to undergo two surgeries, he was out of work for four months. The suit alleged that when Congleton returned to work, he had no restrictions other than to refrain from heavy lifting, which is not ordinarily required for his position.

Nonetheless, he claims that his supervisor saw him as “damaged goods” and did not talk to him, write to him, or call him about his job performance during the four months before he was terminated.

«