The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Risk Classification and Sex Discrimination in Pension Plans
Abstract
Two Supreme Court decisions concerning the legal definition of discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit as discriminatory the use of separate mortality tables for men and women in pension benefit calculations. We analyze discriminatory aspects of risk classification and find that the Civil Rights Act has increased discrimination in pension compensation. This article demonstrates both theoretically and by simulation that sex-based risk classification results in less sex discrimination and less individual discrimination than a unisex approach. This result holds for various sex-based classification policies, as well as for various definitions of discrimination and statistics used to quantify those definitions. Of six pension classification policies, the Supreme Court's policy of unisex classification is the most discriminatory.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In the U.S., a series of legal rulings and new laws led to prohibitions based on gender for retirement systems, c.f., McCarthy and Turner (1993).”
From The Discriminating (Pricing) Actuary (2023) · cites this paper as McCarthy and Turner (1993)
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Discriminating (Pricing) Actuary
Frees, E. W. (., & Huang, F. (2023) · North American Actuarial Journal · doi:10.1080/10920277.2021.1951296 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- McCarthy, D. D., & Turner, J. A.
- Venue
- The Journal of Risk and Insurance
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1993-03
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 85
- ISSN
- 0022-4367
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk Classification and Sex Discrimination in Pension Plans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/253100
- The paper
- McCarthy, D. D., & Turner, J. A. (1993). Risk Classification and Sex Discrimination in Pension Plans. The Journal of Risk and Insurance. https://doi.org/10.2307/253100