## Facts

- The City of San Diego sponsored a defined-benefit pension plan administered by the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS).
- Employees contributed a percentage of salary to fund retirement benefits and survivor benefits; the City made substantially equal contributions under the City Charter.
- At retirement, an employee could elect a “surviving-spouse benefit” option.
- If a married retiree elected the option, the retiree received the full monthly pension for life, and a surviving spouse or domestic partner would receive one-half of that monthly allowance after the retiree’s death.
- If an unmarried retiree elected the option, the retiree could not name a spouse; the retiree could either receive a lump-sum reimbursement of previously paid “survivor contributions” or apply those contributions to increase the retiree’s own pension.
- Janet M. Wood, an unmarried female City employee, retired in 2005 after more than 32 years of service.
- Wood elected the surviving-spouse option and chose to apply her survivor contributions to increase her pension rather than receive a refund.
- Wood filed a Title VII class action alleging (a) disparate treatment against single female retirees and (b) disparate impact because men were more likely than women to be married at retirement and thus more likely to receive the allegedly more valuable married-retiree form of the benefit.

## Issues

1. Whether Wood plausibly alleged intentional sex discrimination sufficient to state a Title VII disparate-treatment claim challenging the pension plan’s surviving-spouse benefit structure.
2. Whether Wood produced sufficient evidence that the facially sex-neutral surviving-spouse benefit caused a Title VII-prohibited disparate impact on women and, if so, whether the plan was protected as a bona fide seniority system under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for the City.
- The court upheld dismissal of the disparate-treatment claim because Wood did not allege facts supporting discriminatory intent; the plan’s terms were facially sex-neutral.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on the disparate-impact claim, concluding Wood failed to show an actionable sex-based disparate impact caused by the challenged practice.
- The court also accepted that the pension arrangement fell within Title VII’s § 703(h) protection for bona fide seniority systems absent proof the system was adopted with intent to discriminate.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII disparate-treatment claims require plausible allegations of intentional discrimination “because of” sex; disparate outcomes alone do not establish intent when the challenged terms are facially neutral.
- A disparate-impact claim requires identification of a specific employment practice and proof that it causes a significant adverse impact on a protected group; correlation with demographic patterns, without adequate causal proof of sex-based impact, is insufficient.
- Title VII permits different compensation terms pursuant to a bona fide seniority system under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h), unless the system was adopted with an intention to discriminate on a protected basis.
- A pension plan feature differentiating based on marital status is not, without more, sex discrimination under Title VII.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a sex-neutral pension survivor-benefit option did not support Title VII liability where the complaint lacked facts showing discriminatory intent and the evidence did not establish a sex-based disparate impact, particularly given § 703(h)’s protection for bona fide seniority-based compensation systems absent discriminatory purpose.


Wood v. City of San Diego, 678 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2012)