Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

The Bill of Rights, 2nd Edition

Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz

by Thomas Tandy Lewis

Citation: 449 U.S. 166

Announced: December 9, 1980

Issues: Irrational distinctions in retirement benefits; Due process of law

Relevant Amendment: Fifth

Brief Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a revised federal retirement plan that divided workers into different categories depending on their length and dates of employment. Since the distinctions were not based on any “suspect classifications,” such as race or gender, the Court’s majority applied a minimal standard of review and concluded that the classification scheme did not violate principles of due process, even though the Court conceded that Congress might have devised a better and more logical system of classification.

In 1974, Congress passed the Railroad Retirement Act, which restricted the retirement system that had been established in 1937. Under the previous system, employees who worked for both railroad and non-railroad employers received not only railroad retirement benefits and social security benefits, but also an additional “windfall” benefit. Since generous benefits threatened to bankrupt the entire retirement program, the goal of the 1974 statute was to gradually phase out the windfall benefit without depriving workers of vested benefits. In a complex restructuring scheme, employees were divided into several categories. Those who were already retired and receiving the windfall benefit would continue to do so. Those with less than ten years of service in 1975 would receive no benefit. The new system drew a distinction between employees who had more than 10 years but less than 25 years of railroad employment simply on the basis of whether they had a “current connection” with the railroad industry as of 1974 or as of the date of retirement.

Gerhard Fritz was a former railroad employee who was eligible to retire in 1975. Since he no longer had a connection with the industry, he was scheduled to receive only a reduced amount of windfall money under the 1974 statute. He joined a group of plaintiffs who alleged that the statute created an irrational distinction between employees, which was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that a differentiation based solely on whether an employee was “active” in the railroad business as of 1974 was not “rationally related” to the statute’s two purposes of insuring the solvency of the retirement system and protecting vested benefits. The Railroad Retirement Board appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and upheld the constitutionality of the statute. In the opinion for the majority, Justice William Rehnquist began with the observation that since railroad benefits were not contractual, the case did not involve the Takings Clause, and Congress had the authority to deny windfall benefits to all employees. Therefore, it was reasonable to draw lines between categories of employees for the purpose of preserving the system. The selection of the particular groups in the statute, moreover, was not entirely arbitrary, because Congress “could assume those who had a current connection with the railroad industry when the Act was passed in 1974, or who returned to the industry before their retirement, were more likely than those who had left the industry prior to 1974, and who never returned, to be among the class of persons who pursue careers in the railroad industry.” Perhaps the new system was not elegant or “artfully drawn,” but this did not necessarily violate principles of due process. The Court, moreover, has never insisted that a legislative body articulate its reasons for for all details of a statute. Quoting an earlier opinion, Rehnquist wrote: “Where, as here, there are plausible reasons for Congress’ action, our inquiry is at an end. It is, of course, ‘constitutionally irrelevant whether this reasoning in fact underlay the legislative decision.’”

In a concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed with the majority’s ruling but criticized Rehnquist’s analysis as inadequate. While insisting that any statute requires a reasonable connection between the classification of persons and its purpose, he found that the Court could reasonably presume that Congress’ had some reasonable motivation in passing this particular statute. Observing that the statute had two conflicting goals—to safeguard the retirement program’s solvency and to protect the benefits earned by employees—he concluded that Congress had legitimately pursued both goals. Since it was entirely necessary to reduce benefits in order to ensure the solvency of the system, length and timing of service was probably as fair as any alternative criteria.

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote a dissent in which he argued the classification adopted by Congress deprived some of the beneficiaries of the vested dual benefits that they had earned before 1974, and that this conflicted with one “principal purpose” of the statute, which was to preserve vested benefits. Even if the benefits were not contractual, “equity and fairness demand that appellees, like their coworkers, retain the vested dual benefits that earned prior to 1974.” Since the denial of these benefits had no rational connection to the statute’s stated purpose, it violated the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall joined in the dissent.

Citation Types

Type
Format
MLA 9th
Lewis, Thomas Tandy. "Railroad Retirement Board V. Fritz." The Bill of Rights, 2nd Edition, edited by Thomas Tandy Lewis, Salem Press, 2017. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=BOR2e_0441.
APA 7th
Lewis, T. T. (2017). Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz. In T. T. Lewis (Ed.), The Bill of Rights, 2nd Edition. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.
CMOS 17th
Lewis, Thomas Tandy. "Railroad Retirement Board V. Fritz." Edited by Thomas Tandy Lewis. The Bill of Rights, 2nd Edition. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2017. Accessed December 14, 2025. online.salempress.com.