If you pay any attention at all to news about employee benefits, but don't have a professional interest in the area, then you "know" that cash balance pension plans are a dubiously legal scheme for bilking workers out of promised retirement benefits. You have certainly read about Cooper v. IBM Personal Pension Plan, in which a District Court judge (in Madison County, Illinois, the country's most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction) ruled earlier this year that cash balance plans violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and that IBM owes plan participants a gigantic, not yet calculated sum. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post and every other major newspaper ran the story as front page news, and it was reported by all the networks. The general tone of the coverage was that the case was a major legal landmark, even if a few "employer representatives" were stubbornly resisting Judge Murphy's self-evidently irrefragible logic.
On June 10th, another District Court, this one in Maryland, addressed the same issue and reached the opposite conclusion. In Tootle v. ARINC Inc. [PDF file], Judge Catherine Blake rejected the arguments that had so impressed her Illinois colleague and held that ARINC's conversion of its "traditional" pension plan into a cash balance plan was perfectly legal.
This morning I checked Nexis. No publication in that massive database has carried even one story about Tootle. A search on the Wall Street Journal site likewise uncovered no coverage, though that paper's crusading anti-cash balance reporter Ellen Schultz had much to say about Cooper.
Is there reason to suspect that media bias extends beyond Iraq?
Further Reading: ERISA Industry Committee, "Hybrid Plan Research Studies" (a summary of empirical research on cash balance plans, showing that companies have been adopting them to meet employees' needs, not to cut costs surreptitiously)
Update: On July 11th, the Washington Post got around to mentioning Tootle v. ARINC, at the tail end of an article about privacy rules for medical records. I have been told by someone in a position to know that the reporter had previously prepared a separate story about the case, but the Post never ran it. The silence of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Business Week et al. remains impressively uniform.
Comments