Amicus Curiae Brief — Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Supreme Court brief1985

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ge r eP (9)

No. 85-3 ~

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1985

ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY,

Petitioner,

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for The Eleventh Circuit

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AND

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF GEORGIA-PACIFIC

CCRPORATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR

A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ALEXANDER E. WILSON III*

Rosert H. BuckKLer

ANNE S. RAMPACEK

ALSTON & BirD

1200 C&S National Bank Bldg.

35 Broad Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30335

(404) 586-1500

GLORIA J. SHANOR

GEorRGIA-PActiFIC CORPORATION

133 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30348

(404) 521-4845

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Georgia-Pacific Corporation

August 2, 1985 *Counseil of Record

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

iN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1985

No. 85-3

ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY,

Petitioner,

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for The Eleventh Circuit

MOTION OF GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

In accordance with Rule 36.1 of this Court’s Rules, Georgia-

Pacific Corporation moves this Court for leave to file the at-

tached brief amicus curiae in support of the above Petition

for a Writ of Certiorari in which Atlanta Gas Light Company

seeks a ruling on the question of whether this Court’s decision

in Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 426

U.S. 669 (1983), regarding the applicability of the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act (PDA) to health insurance benefits for

spouses of employees must be given retroactive effect. Al-

though Atlanta Gas Light has submitted its written consent

to the filing of this brief, Respondent EEOC has refused to

consent if Georgia-Pacific’s brief includes references to mat-

ters outside the record. Georgia-Pacific’s brief does include

matters outside the record, specifically, (i) Census Bureau

data from which an estimate of the enormous cost of retroac-

tive application of Newport News may be gleaned; (ii) deter-

minations issued by the EEOC with respect to discrimination

charges filed against Georgia-Pacific, which reveal that the

EEOC itself wavered in its insistence on the position eventu-

ally embraced by Newport News; and (iii) facts and argu-

ments regarding the effect of retroactive application of New-

port News where, as with Georgia-Pacific and many other

employers, health insurance policies have been adopted pur-

suant to collective bargaining agreements between employers

and unions. It is precisely because these matters have not

been presented in the Petition and because they have a signif-

icant bearing on the importance of the question presented in

the Petition that Georgia-Pacific desires to participate in

these proceedings as amicus curiae. Accordingly, Georgia-Pa-

cific proceeds by motion rather than by consent.

Georgia-Pacific’s interest in this Petition stems primarily

from the fact that it is a defendant in a similar case. EEOC v.

Georgia-Pacific Corp., No. 85-0006A (N.D. Ga.). In that case,

which was filed on January 23, 1985—one and one-half years

after Newport News—the EEOC challenges the legality of

Georgia-Pacific’s practices with regard to spousal maternity

benefits prior to Newport News and seeks retroactive relief

for all current and former male employees of Georgia-Pacific,

salaried and hourly, union and nonunion, nationwide.

Unlike Atlanta Gas Light, whose business is conducted in

only one state, Georgia-Pacific employs employees in 47 of

the 5u states. During the pre-Newport News time at issue,

Georgia-Pacific’s headquarters were located in Portland, Ore-

gon, within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit which held

prior to Newport News that the PDA does not require em-

ployers to insure spousal pregnancy-related medical expenses

to the same extent as other spousal medical expenses. Many

of its facilities were located within the jurisdictions of the

Seventh Circuit and the several district courts which likewise

held prior to Newport News that the PDA did not extend to

spousal pregnancy-related expenses.

During the years in question, Georgia-Pacific provided

group health insurance, including dependent coverage, to its

_ employees through approximately 200 insurance plans which

were administered locally.

A great many of Georgia-Pacific’s employees in a variety of

locations across the nation are represented by the locals of

virtually every union in existence. As to all of these employ-

ees, Georgia-Pacific provides health insurance benefits pur-

suant to collective bargaining agreements negotiated with the

unions at the local level. During the time in question, some of

Georgia-Pacific’s unionized employees—those in more than

40 locations in 50 states—were insured under union-spon-

sored Taft-Hartley multi-employer health and welfare plans.

Georgia-Pacific pays the entire group health insurance pre-

mium for some of its employees. For others, some or all of the

premium is paid by the employees themselves, as was the case

under the policies provided by the Petitioner, Atlanta Gas

Light Company. Under all of the insurance policies in effect

during the relevant time period, the insurance companies (or

union insurance trust administrators)—not Georgia-Pa-

cific—processed and paid health insurance claims.

Georgia-Pacific is only one of many companies that employ

union and nonunion employees in numerous locations

throughout the nation and provide health insurance benefits

under a large number of different policies with a variety of

insurance companies. Georgia-Pacific knows how burden-

some retroactive application of Newport News would be for it

and for similarly situated employers, both in terms of identi-

fying and processing claims and in terms of paying additional

benefits in the manner ordered in the Atlanta Gas Light case

by the court below. Georgia-Pacific believes that its under-

standing of the impact of retroactive application of Newport

News—informed in part by the matters dehors the record

that are included in its brief—will aid this Court in evaluating

the importance of the question of whether Newport News

should be applied retroactively or prospectively only.

For the foregoing reasons, Georgia-Pacific respectfully

urges this Court to grant its motion for leave to file the at-

tached brief amicus curiae.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER E. WILSOon III*

RosBertT H. BucKLER

ANNE S. RAMPACEK

ALSTON & BirD

1200 C&S National Bank Bldg.

35 Broad Street

Atlanta, Georgia 30335

(404) 586-1500

GLorRIA J. SHANOR

GEORGIA-PAciFic CORPORATION

133 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30348

(404) 521-4845

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Georgia-Pacific Corporation

August 2, 1985 *Counsel of Record

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................. i

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................ 1

SI ooo a nae asics cha eae wei 3

I. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS AN

IMPORTANT ONE THAT HAS NOT

BEEN, BUT SHOULD BE, SETTLED

ig, th. eee ee 3

II. THE LOWER COURT’S RESOLUTION

OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS

IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH

CHEVRON OIL CO. V. HUSON......... 6

III. THE LOWER COURT’S RESOLUTION

OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS

IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH LOS

ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER

& POWER V. MANHART AND

ARIZONA GOVERNING COMMITTEE

PS i nS ree ea DEA was 9

A. The Lower Court’s Conclusion That

Newport News was Clearly

Foreshadowed Is In Direct Conflict

with Manhart And Norris. .......... 10

B. The Lower Court’s Apparent

Conclusion That Nonretroactive

Application Will Retard The

Operation Of Newport News Is In

Direct Conflict With Manhart And

PE ore ae EDP ee ret teen 11

C. The Lower Court’s Conclusion That

The Equities Do Not Require

Prospective-Only Application Of

Newport News Is In Direct Conflict

With Manhart And Norris .......... 12

IV. THE LOWER COURT’S RESOLUTION |

OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS

IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH H. K.

PORTER CO. v. NLRB.................. 18

go RE Raid: agen Soe tae : 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975). 12, 13

Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) 8

Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers, Local 1 v.

if) © fit SB gs.) | ne 5, 6, 18

Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S.

REE SERS SR a ee arse Warnes Compe ar 2, 5, 10, 11

Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (1971) ....... 2, 5,6

England v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 375

Sa: ED web 5 ASA RR Ee ak As be ORE 8

EEOC v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock

Co., 667 F.2d 448 (4th Cir.), on rehearing en banc,

682 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1062) ...... 0. eee 2,8

Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S.

RRS See ree Gres wr ee eee 18

Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 441 U.S. 488 (1979) ...... 18

General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976). _7, 10

H.K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U.S. 99 (1970) ...... 2,5, 18

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power v.

Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978)................ 2, 5, 9, 10

NLRB v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U.S.

EER Aion en am MO PET ER pa egy eB 18

NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp., 356

I, circa Ou ak eas 4% ee 18

Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v.

EBOC, 462 U.S. G60 (1063)... . .. 2... eee ee. 1,3

Statutes

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §

MS xe Picco veep Re ee he ee ck sh 8s 1

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub.L.

95-555, 92 Stat. 2076, codified at 42 U.S.C

I a eee re 1,37

Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) ................ )

National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(d) |... 18

Miscellaneous

44 Fed. Reg. 23,804 (Apr. 20,1979)....... ........

29 C.F.R. § 800.116(d) (1983) .....................

Se eee

Executive Order No. 11246, 3 C.F.R. 339 (1965), re-

printed in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1982) ............. 9

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Re-

ports, Series P-60, No. 131, Characteristics of

Households and Persons Receiving Selected Non-

cash Benefits: 1980 (1982) ..................... A-1

U.S. Bureau of the Census, STATISTICAL AB-

STRACTS OF THE UNITED STATES 1982-83

NE MR ot rete y ies Fie wet ak A-1

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OUTOBER TERM, 1985

No. 85-3

ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY,

Petitioner,

Vv.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF GEORGIA-

PACIFIC CORPORATION IN SUPPORT OF

PETITIONER

Georgia-Pacific Corporation respectfully submits this brief

as amicus curiae in support of Atlanta Gas Light Company’s

petition for a writ of certiorari.

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The interest of Georgia-Pacific Corporation and its reasons

for participating in this case are set forth in the attached mo-

tion for leave to file this brief. That statement of interest is

incorporated herein.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC,

462 U.S. 669 (1983), this Court held that Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimina-

tion Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), requires employers to insure

spousal pregnancy-related expenses to the same extent as

other spousal medical expenses. The question presented

here—whether Newport News should be applied retroac-

tively—has not yet been resolved by this Court and is an im-

portant question because of both the practical and the legal

issues it raises.

Georgia-Pacific estimates that the cost for all employers

nationwide of retroactive application of Newport News would

total approximately $16 billion. The order of the court below,

which requires employers to pay the entire cost of all previ-

ously uninsured spousal maternity expenses, places a dispro-

portionate share of the burden of retroactive relief on em-

ployers in light of the fact that health benefits are typically

provided through insurance and the cost of such insurance is

frequently either shared by employers and employees, as in

this case, or paid entirely by the employees. Because of these

facts and because both the terms of coverage and the alloca-

tion of the cost of insurance between employer and employee

are, in the union setting, mandatory subjects of collective bar-

gaining, the variables and unknowns are too numerous for the

courts to be able to apply Newport News retroactively in such

a way as to put the cost of relief where it fairly belongs.

The legal significance of the question presented goes far be-

yond the pregnancy discrimination context in which it arises.

The failure of the court below to consider the reasonableness

of the employer’s reliance on the law prior to Newport News,

the cost of retroactive relief, or the impossibility of fashioning

relief fairly, puts its decision squarely in conflict with at least

four decisions of this Court: Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404

U.S. 97 (1971) (articulating a three-part test for retroactive

application of new rules of law in civil cases); Arizona Gov-

erning Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983); Los Ange-

les Department of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702

(1978) (both applying application of Title VII in the pension

area prospectively because of the reasonableness of employ-

ers’ reliance on prior law and the impossibility of fashioning

retroactive relief fairly); H.K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U.S.

99 (1970) (prohibiting courts from dictating the terms of col-

lective bargaining agreements). If left to stand, the decision

below is precedent for applying retroactively virtually all new

interpretations of the law issued by this Court and thereby

giving federal agencies like the EEOC license to penalize

those citizens whose activities are governed by the plethora of

federal statutes for their good faith and reasonable reliance

on prior law. The decision below would also be precedent for

allowing federal courts to interfere with the collective bar-

gaining process by spelling out the specific method by which

the employer and union are to comply with the law rather

than merely ordering them to comply.

ARGUMENT

I. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS AN IMPORTANT

ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN, BUT SHOULD BE, SET-

TLED BY THIS COURT.

The legal issue presented in Atlanta Gas Light Company’s

petition is the only significant issue in the area of pregnancy

discrimination in the workplace left open after Newport

News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669

(1983). In that case, this Court extended Title VII, as

amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 4?

U.S.C. § 2000e(k), to employer-provided health insurance

benefits for spouses of employees.

The issue presented—whether the holding in Newport

News should be applied retroactively—has great practical

importance. First, Georgia Pacific estimates that the cost of

reimbursing male employees nationwide for pregnancy-re-

lated expenses incurred by their wives during the four-year

period between the effective date of the PDA and Newport

News is a staggering $16 billion.’ Second, and more impor-

! Based on Census Bureau Statistics, which are summarized in Appendix

4 and of which this Court may take judicial notice, it is reasonable to as-

sume that half of the 32 million civilian married male employees with wives

present (77% of whom were between the ages of 16 and 44) would have had

an average of one live birth between 1979 and 1983. Assuming that each of

their wives incurred a total of only $1000 in expenses for each live birth as

well as such other pregnancy-related conditions as miscarriages and still-

births, a conservative estimate of the amount of pregnancy-related ex-

penses incurred by these wives during the four years at issue is $16 billion.

tant, the question of who might fairly be required to pay what

portion of this cost if Newport News is applied retroactively

is enormously’ complicated by several important factors

which the court below failed to consider: (i) the pregnancy

benefits at issue here are those typically provided through in-

surance; (ii) insurance comes in an infinite number of vari-

eties because of such variables as deductibles and percentage

limitations and/or dollar caps on coverage; (iii) the premiums

for such insurance are frequently paid either in whole or in

part by the employees themselves rather than the employer;

and (iv) where employees are represented by unions, the ex-

tent of the benefits as well as the allocation of the cost of in-

surance as between the employer and the employees are es-

tablished through the collective bargaining process, and the

parties frequently agree to provide insurance through multi-

employer Taft-Hartley plans, the terms of which are not de-

termined by the employer. The variables that result from

these factors are so numerous that it is impossible to recon-

struct the particular risk-spreading mechanism for spousal

pregnancy-related medical expenses that a given employer

might have adopted had it anticipated Newport News. It is

thus impossible to fashion retroactive relief so as to = the

burden of its cost where it fairly belongs.

Because of the practicalities implicated by the precise legal

question presented—i.e., whether the holding of Newport

News applies reteoactively—two subsidiary questions of far-

reaching importance are also raised in the petition:

First, in determining whether a new rule of law such as

that announced in Newport News should be applied ret-

This figure does not even take into consideration the 12% prejudgment

interest allowed by the court below, the cost of notifying potential claim-

ants, and the cost of processing claims to determine in each case what

amount might be due the employee.

? Census Bureau Statistics, summarized in Appendix A, establish (i) that

employers and unions together pay 100% of the cost of group health insur-

ance for only 44% of the covered employees, and (ii) that during the four

years in question employers and unions paid only $31 billion in premiums

for the $63.2 billion in benefits payable to married male employees and

their families, plus the unknown percentage of the cost of the remaining

plans for which employees paid all or part of the cost.

roactively, should the courts consider factors such as the

reasonableness of the parties’ reliance on prior inconsis-

tent law, the cost of retroactive relief, and the impossibil-

ity of fashioning retroactive relief so as to place the bur-

den of its cost where it fairly belongs? This Court has

previously held that all of these factors are to be consid-

ered. Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S.

1073 (1983); Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978); Chevron Oil Co. v. Hu-

son, 404 U.S. 97 (1971). The failure of the court below to

take these factors into account establishes either that the

decision below is in direct conflict with these decisions

and must be corrected by this Court or that this Court’s

prior decisions are in need of clarification so that the

lower courts will not commit the same error in future

cases.

Second, where unions are involved, and where, as in

the group health insurance context, both the amount of

benefits and the allocation of the cost of providing the

benefits as between the employer and the employee are

established through the collective bargaining process, do

the federal courts have the power not only to require

spousal maternity expenses to be paid but also to deter-

mine the percentage of the cost of the benefits to be

borne by the employer? This Court has held that the fed-

eral courts have no authority to dictate the precise terms

of collective bargaining agreements to employers and un-

ions. H.K. Porter Co.-v. NLRB, 397 U.S. 99 (1970). That

the court below ignored this well established principle,

both in its analysis of the retroactivity issue and in its

fashioning of an overly broad and simplistic remedy, pro-

vides ample grounds for issuance of a writ of certiorari,

lest the decision below stand as precedent for federal ju-

dicial intrusion into the collective bargaining process in

other fact settings.*

’ Although the record now before the Court does not show that Atlanta

Gas Light employees are represented by a union, this Court may certainly

take judicial notice of the fact that the employees of many employers af-

fected by the decision below, like Georgia-Pacific, are represented by un-

ions, and that health insurance benefits, which this Court has held are

mandatory subjects of bargaining, Allied Chem. & Alkali Workers, Local 1

This is not just another pregnancy discrimination case. It is

not even just another Title VII case. If allowed to stand, the

decision of the court below will have a significant, far reach-

ing, and potentially disruptive precedential effect on numer-

ous other areas of the law—first, because its analysis of the

question of retroactive application of new rules of law in all

civil cases represents at best a novel and extremely restrictive

interpretation of this Court’s decisions on that question, and,

second, because it opens the door to direct involvement in the

collective bargaining process by the courts.

Il. THE LOWER COURT’S RESOLUTION OF THE

QUESTION PRESENTED IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT

WITH CHEVRON OIL CO. V. HUSON.

In Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 (1971),

this Court articulated a three-part test for determining when

to apply new rulings prospectively only.‘ The Court of Ap-

peals’ holding that that test is not satisfied in this case is pre-

mised in large part on its conclusion that the Supreme Court

“believed that the legislative history of the PDA rendered the

correct result in Newport News self-evident.” 751 F.2d at

1190. Reasoning that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of

both the meaning of the statute and whether that meaning is

“clear,” id., and relying on such statements in Newport News

as, “(t]he [PDA] makes clear that it is discriminatory to treat

pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other medi-

cal conditions,” id. at 1759-60 (quoting Newport News, 462

U.S. at 684), the court below concluded that Newport News

precludes a determination that the holding of that case was

not clearly foreshadowed. The lower court’s analysis is not

vu. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157 (1971), are fixed pursuant to the

collective bargaining process.

* The three factors are (1) whether the ruling decided “an issue of first

impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed, (2) whether in

retroactive application will “further or retard” the operation of the rule,

and (3) whether retroactive application would produce “substantial inequi-

| table results.” 404 U.S. at 106-07.

supported by Newport News and conflicts with the holding

and rationale of Huson. ;

Newport News was a 7-2 decision. Its holding stems ini-

tially from the majority’s conclusion that neither the lan-

guage of the PDA (which speaks expressly only in terms of

employees*) nor its legislative history barred extension of the

statute to dependents. 462 U.S. at 678-82. Having found no

such bar, the majority interpreted the legislative history of

the PDA as signaling wholesale rejection of the Supreme

Court’s earlier decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429

U.S. 125 (1976), and requiring examination of the spousal ma-

ternity benefits issue on a clean slate. Jd. Having thus dis-

missed Gilbert altogether, the majority took a fresh look at

the pregnancy discrimination issue generally and in this con-

text decided the spousal maternity benefits issue. Jd. at 682-

85.°

The statement by the Newport News majority that “[t]he

[PDA] makes clear that it is discriminatory to treat preg-

nancy-related conditions less favorably than other medical

conditions” is little more than a response to the dissenters’

argument that the PDA had not rendered all of Gilbert obso-

lete and that under what remained of Gilbert the exclusion of

pregnancy benefits for dependent spouses was lawful. See 462

U.S. at 685-95 (Rehnquist & Powell, JJ., dissenting). That

statement is not, as the court below intimated, a holding that

the meaning of the PDA, as interpreted by the Court in New-

port News, was so “clear” that the courts are now precluded

from finding that Newport News was not “clearly foreshad-

owed” within the meaning of Huson. Indeed, since the Court

5’ The PDA provides in part that “women affected by pregnancy [etc.]

shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including

receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so

affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” 42 U.S.C.

§2000e(k). (Emphasis added).

* This analysis is made clear in footnote 21 of the majority opinion, 462

U.S. at 681, where the Court stated that its “holding relies on the 1978 legis-

lation [PDA] only to the extent that it unequivocally rejected the Gilbert

decision,” and that “ultimately we rely on our understanding of general

Title VII principles.”

had no occasion in Newport News to consider whether or not

its holding should apply retroactively,’ this statement is pure

dictum with respect to the retroactivity issue.

The reliance of the court below on this dictum betrays its

misunderstanding of the “clearly foreshadowed” element of

the Huson test. In Huson this Court refused to apply retroac-

tively its earlier holding that admiralty law does not apply in

cases arising under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

404 U.S. at 99-100. The Court’s holding that its earlier deci-

sion was not “clearly foreshadowed” was based on its conclu-

sion that the plaintiff had reasonably relied on the prior state

of the law as reflected in a series of decisions of the Fifth Cir-

cuit. Jd. at 105-09.

The only case cited in Huson in connection with the

“clearly foreshadowed” standard is Allen v. State Board of

Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969), a case in which this Court re-

fused to give retroactive effect to its holding that certain

changes in state election laws are subject to §5 of the Voting

Rights Act. The holding in Allen was based on this Court’s

conclusion that the issue of §5 coverage was one of first im-

pression subject to rational disagreement and that the states’

failure to anticipate the holding was therefore not “deliberate

defiance of the Act.” Id. at 548.8

As the holdings and rationale of Huson and Allen demon-

strate, the “clearly foreshadowed” element of the Huson test

is grounded on the notion that parties should not be penal-

ized for their reasonable reliance on the law as it existed

before the announcement of a new rule of law, regardless of

7 In Newport News, the district court had dismissed the EEOC’s com-

plaint and therefore not ordered any retroactive relief. 462 U.S. at 674. On

appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed but did not discuss the question of ret-

roactive relief or whether its own decision should be applied nonretroac-

tively. EEOC v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 667 F.2d 448

(4th Cir.), on rehearing en banc, 682 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1982).

* See also England v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411

(1964) (Court’s “clarification” of earlier decision concerning procedure

under the abstention doctrine held nonretroactive because plaintiff’s mis-

taken interpretation of the earlier decision, which would have resulted in a

waiver of his right to assert a constitutional claim in federal court, was

reasonable).

how positive the Court is that the new rule is correct. Because

Title VII and the PDA on their face plainly do not extend to

dependents of employees and because the lower courts had

been nearly unanimous prior to Newport News in holding

that these statutes did not require employers to insure

spousal maternity conditions to the same extent as other

spousal conditions,” the failure of employers to anticipate this

Court’s clean-slate analysis of the pregnancy discrimination

issue and its first-time extension of the statutes to depen-

dents of employees was unquestionably reasonable. Accord-

ingly, the lower court’s conclusion that it was precluded from

considering the reasonable reliance of employers on the state

of the law prior to Newport News is directly contrary to this

Court’s decision in Huson.

III. THE LOWER COURT’S RESOLUTION OF THE

QUESTION PRESENTED IS IN DIRECT CON-

FLICT WITH LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF

WATER & POWER V. MANHART AND ARIZONA

GOVERNING COMMITTEE V. NORRIS.

The Court of Appeals’ erroneous conclusion that the ra-

tionale of Newport News precludes a determination that its

® See cases cited in Atlanta Gas Light’s Petition, pp. 11-13. Stated in

geographical terms, the state of the law nationwide at the time of this

Court’s decision in Newport News was as follows: employers in the twelve

states included within the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, as well as employers

in Illinois, Missouri, Georgia, and Texas, had binding judicial precedents

upon which to rely in support of their conclusion that the PDA does not

extend to dependent benefits. Only in the four states included within the

Fourth Circuit was there any binding precedent favoring extension of the

PDA to dependent benefits, and the decision of that circuit was under re-

view by this Court. Additional evidence that Newport News was not clearly

foreshadowed includes (1) the fact that the nonbinding interpretive guide-

lines upon which the EEOC relies, 44 Fed. Reg. 23,803, 23,807 (Apr. 20,

1979), were inconsistent with the Labor Department’s interpretation of the

Equal Pay Act, 29 C.F.R. §800.116(d) (1979), and the guidelines for imple-

mentation of Exec. Ord. No. 11246, 41 C.F.R. §60-20.3(c) (1979-1983); and

(2) the fact that even the EEOC was inconsistent in its interpretation of the

PDA as applied to spousal maternity benefits prior to Newport News, as

evidenced by “no reasonable cause” determinations it issued in connection

with at least eight charges of spousal maternity benefit discrimination

against Georgia-Pacific (see Appendix B).

holding was not clearly foreshadowed caused it to ignore the

controlling precedential effect of Los Angeles Department of

Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978), and Arizona

Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1077 (1983), where,

in the analogous context of group pension benefits, this Court

declined to apply new interpretations of Title VII retroac-

tively for precisely the reasons that exist in this case.

A. The Lower Court’s Conclusion That Newport News

Was Clearly Foreshadowed Is In Direct Conflict

With Manhart And Norris.

In Manhart this Court expressly relied on the plain lan-

guage of Title VII and “the basic policy of the statute” in

striking down a policy under which women, because they live

longer on the average than men, were required to pay approx-

imately 15% more in contributions to a pension fund than

their male counterparts in order to realize the same monthly

retirement benefit. 435 U.S. at 708-09. The employer in Man-

hart could point to only one brief comment in the extensive

legislative history of the Civil Rights Act and to the Court’s

pregnancy discrimination decision in General Electric Co. v.

Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976) (rendered only after certiorari

had been granted in Manhart), in support of its interpreta-

tion of the statute. 435 U.S. at 711-716. Nevertheless, this

Court found that its holding was not so clearly foreshadowed

that employers and pension fund administrators should be

penalized by an award oi retroactive relief for not complying

with the statute:

Although we now have no doubt about the application of

the statute in this case, we must recognize that conscien-

tious and talented administrators of pension funds. . .

may well have assumed that a program like the Depart-

ment’s was entirely lawful. The courts had been silent on

the question, and the administrative agencies had con-

flicting views. T'he Department’s failure to act more

swiftly is a sign, not of its recalcitrance, but of the prob-

lem’s complexity.

Id. at 719-20 (footnotes omitted). If Manhart was not clearly

- foreshadowed by the plain language of the statute found con-

11°

trolling by the Court merely because the courts had been “si-

lent on the question” and the agencies had conflicting views,

it necessarily follows that Newport News, which was not

based on the plain language of the statute but rather on a

clean-slate analysis of the entire pregnancy discrimination is-

sue, was not clearly foreshadowed either.

Five years after Manhart, this Court held in Arizona Gov-

erning Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (1983), that the

use of sex-based actuarial tables to calculate pension benefits,

which resulted in the payment of lower monthly pension ben-

efits to women than to men who had made the same contribu-

tions to the pension fund, was unlawful. The Court’s holding

was based squarely on the holding and rationale of Manhart.

Id. at 1080-86. In spite of its reliance on Manhart, and in spite

of the fact that all but one of the eight decisions of the lower

courts in which the same issue had been considered after

Manhart had anticipated the holding in Norris, id. at 1081 &

n.9, this Court refused to apply its decision retroactively. The

Court held that “an employer reas: 1ably could have as-

sumed” that the use of sex-based actuar.al tables to calculate

pension benefits was lawful. Jd. at 1106. If Norris was not

clearly foreshadowed by Manhart, it necessarily follows that

Newport News — this Court’s first ruling on dependent bene-

fits, and one that was not premised on either an earlier deci-

sion of this Court, the express language of the PDA, or even

comments in the legislative history — was not clearly

foreshadowed.

B. The Lower Court’s Apparent Conclusion That Non-

retroactive Application Will Retard The Operation

of Newport News Is In Direct Conflict With Manhart

And Norris.

Newport News requires employers to treat spousal preg-

nancy-related conditions in the same manner as they treat

other spousal conditions. Since the law in this regard is now

clear and unambiguous, retroactive application of the rule of

Newport News provides no more incentive to comply with it

in the future than prospective application. Accordingly, the

second Huson criterion — that prospective application not

retard the operation of the rule, 404 U.S. at 607 — is plainly

satisfied.

The lower court’s unexplained holding that Atlanta Gas

Light “fail[ed] to satisfy” the second Huson criterion, 751

F.2d at 1191, is in direct conflict with the application of this

criterion in Manhart and Norris. In both of those cases this

Court found “no reason to believe” that retroactivity was nec-

essary to ensure compliance with the decisions. Manhart, 435

U.S. at 720-21; Norris, 463 U.S. at 1110 (O’Connor, J.,

concurring).’°®

C. The Lower Court’s Conclusion That The Equities Do

Not Require Prospective-Only Application Of New-

port News Is In Direct Conflict With Manhart And

Norris.

The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that there are no sub-

stantial inequities that require prospective-only application

of Newport News ignores the crucial distinction recognized

by this Court in Manhart and Norris between typical Title

VII hiring, promotion, and discharge cases and Title VII cases

involving an employee benefit plan made available to employ-

ees through a third-party insurer. In the typica! Title VII

case, retroactive relief consists of placing employees in their

rightful places in the workforce vis-a-vis position and level of

compensation and requiring the employer to pay the employ-

ity stated in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody furthers the goals of Title VII

by encouraging employers to “self-evaluate” and “shun practices of dubi-

ous legality,” 751 F.2d at 1191 (quoting 422 U.S. 405, 417-18 (1975)), begs

the question in light of the later decisions in Manhart and Norris. These

goals would have been furthered by retroactive application of Manhart,

and even more so by retroactive application of Norris, in exactly the way

they would arguably be furthered here. But the lesson of Manhart and Nor-

ris — and indeed the language of the second Huson criterion itself — is that

the question is not whether goals of the statute as a whole will be furthered

by retroactive application of the decision but whether the operation of the

specific rule announced in the decision at issue will be furthered or retarded

by retroactive application-of the rule. See Huson, 404 U.S. at 607. Here, as

in Manhart and Norris, the mere announcement of the rule, coupled with

the threat of backpay awards as to noncompliance in the future, is enough

to ensure that the rule will be followed.

—

ees exactly what it would have paid, entirely from its own as-

sets, had the employees been in their rightful places all along.

E.g., Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975). No

matter how costly such retroactive relief might be, the

amount is easily ascertained by reference to the actual wages

paid by the defendant employer to its other employees, and

because wages are paid solely by the employer, there is no

question that the burden of the cost of relief is fairly put on

the employer.

An employee benefits case such as this is not nearly so

straightforward. First, unlike wages, group health insurance

benefits are frequently paid for, in whole or in part, by the

employees themselves. Second, the terms of group health in-

surance plans — including the conditions covered, the extent

of coverage, the cost, and the allocation of the cost between

the employer and the employees — are the result of agree-

ments between the employer and one or more insurers and, as

to most unionized employees, between the employer and one

or more unions. Third, the primary benefit employees derive

from group health insurance is not that their medical ex-

penses are insured (for insurance is available on the open

market) or that their premiums are paid in whole or in part, if

at all, by the employer (for the premium for each employee is

modest). The real benefit to the employees is that their em-

ployers are able to negotiate better coverage at lower “group”

rates than the employees individually can obtain on their

own. Fourth, under a group health insurance plan, the risk of

loss to any individual employee of a company is spread among

all insured employees of that company to the extent the loss is

covered by that plan. Enlarging the risk — as, for example, by

adding pregnancy-related or other otherwise uninsured con-

ditions to the conditions covered by the plan — necessarily

increases the cost of the insurance.

The PDA, as interpreted by Newport News in 1983, re-

quired employers who provided health insurance for depen-

dents that did not cover pregnancy-related conditions and

other conditions equally to go back to the drawing boards as

to coverage for female spouses in the same way that the plain

language of the PDA required employers to rethink insurance

for female employees. Had they been able in 1979 to antici-

pate Newport .News, employers would have had several op-

tions for complying with the law. Through the collective bar-

gaining process, or unilaterally in nonunion settings,

employers could have discontinued dependent coverage alto-

gether; they could have continued to provide dependent cov-

erage and simply added pregnancy-related conditions to

those covered by an existing plan, incurring an increase in

premium; or they could have negotiated a new insurance

package under which the added cost of maternity coverage

would be offset by a reduction in benefits generally—for ex-

ample, by an increase in the deductible or a decrease in the

percentage of reimbursable expenses. Additionally, employ-

ers who elected simply to add maternity coverage but who

previously had paid some or all of the premium for dependent

benefits could have offset the increased cost of pregnancy

coverage by requiring employees to pay either the entire pre-

mium or an increased percentage of the premium."

The lower court’s failure to take these exceptional circum-

stances into account is in direct conflict with this Court’s

treatment of similarly exceptional circumstances in Manhart

and Norris. In Manhart this Court rejected two arguments

regarding the equities involved in the pension benefits area

when it refused to apply retroactively its holding that Title

VII prohibits the then common practice of requiring women

to contribute more to a pension plan than similarly situated

men because of their relative life expectancies. The first argu-

ment was that the total amount at issue was “only 15% of the

contributions made by a minority of the [|employer’s] employ-

ees for [a] 33-month period.” Manhart v. Los Angeles De-

partment of Water & Power, 553 F.2d 581, 592 (9th Cir.

1976), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 435 U.S. 702 (1978). The

second argument was that this modest sum could be refunded

to the female employees either directly by the employer, as in

"' Section 3 of the PDA prohibited employers from complying with the

PDA by reducing benefits provided to any ex.ployee on the date of enact-

ment only for the first year after enactment of the statute on October 31,

1978 (or for the period covered by any collective bargaining agreement). 92

Stat. 2076.

Se ee ee

any other type of Title VII case, or indirectly by the pension

fund itself, with or without a corresponding payment into the

fund by the employer. 435 U.S. at 732 (dissenting opinion);

553 F.2d at 592. Because of the nature of group pension plans,

this Court took a broader view of the issue.

Nor can we ignore the potential impact which changes

in rules affecting insurance and pension plans may have

on the economy. . . . These plans, like other forms of

insurance, depend on the accumulation of large sums to

cover contingencies. The amounts set aside are deter-

mined by a painstaking assessment of the insurer’s

likely liability. Risks that the insurer foresees will be in-

cluded in the calculation of liability, and the rates or

contributions charged will reflect that calculation. The

occurrence of major unforeseen contingencies, however,

jeopardizes the insurer’s solvency and, ultimately, the in-

sureds’ benefits. Drastic changes in the legal rules gov-

erning pension and insurance funds, like other unfore-

seen events, can have this effect. Consequently, the rules

that apply to these funds should not be applied retroac-

tively unless the legislature has plainly commanded that

result.

435 U.S. at 721-22 (footnotes and citations omitted) (empha-

sis added).

The pension benefits at issue in Norris represented a re-

turn on contributions made entirely by the employees out of

their earnings. 463 U.S. at 1077 & 1092 (opinion of Marshall,

J.) & 1105 n.10 (opinion of Powell, J.). The differential found

unlawful there was not based on different levels of contribu-

tions but rather on the rate of return on equal contributions

spread over more years for women than for men pursuant to

actuarial calculations made separately for women and men.

Had the actuarial calculations been based on the longevity of

all employees, averaged together, the monthly benefit for

men would have been smaller and that for women larger than

the benefit to which each group was entitled under the dis-

criminatory plan.

As in Manhart, the funds necessary to equalize benefits in

Norris could have come (i) from the employer, who would be

required to make direct, out-of-pocket payments over and

above the wages it had paid its employees, or (ii) from the

pension fund itself, which might become insolvent if the

reserves attributable to past contributions proved insufficient

to equalize venefits, or (iii) from the male retirees, whose con-

tract-based expectations would thereby be disappointed.

. This Court found each of these solutions inequitable. 463

U.S. at 1105-07, (majority opinion of Powell, J.), 1110 (opin-

ion of O’Connor, J., concurring), & 1093-94 (Marshall, J., dis-

senting). As in Manhart, the impossibility of fashioning ret-

roactive relief so as to reconstruct the manner in which the

pension plan would realistically have been funded had the

employer anticipated Norris, and to place the burden of relief

where it fairly belonged given the nature of the pension plan

at issue, persuaded the Court that retroactive relief was

inappropriate.

The same factors that informed this Court’s judgment in

Manhart and Norris exist in this case as well. No form of ret-

roactive relief can reconstruct the risk-spreading mechanism

for spousal maternity disabilities that Atlanta Gas Light and

other employers might have adopted had they anticipated

Newport News. In effect, the Court of Appeals assumed that

Atlanta Gas Light is “self insured,” i.e., that it pays the medi-

cal expenses of employees and dependents out of its own as-

sets rather than through the assets of an insurance company

to which premiums are paid by both the employees and the

employer. Although this approach is simple and serves the

purpose of compensating the victims of discrimination, it

completely ignores the manner in which Atlanta Gas Light’s

health insurance plan was funded and administered. Thus,

requiring Atlanta Gas Light to refund the premiums paid by

male employees for supplemental maternity coverage for

their wives is in direct conflict with Manhart where this Court

expressly found that it would be inequitable to require the

defendant to refund excess pension contributions paid by fe-

male employees. More significantly, requiring Atlanta Gas

Light itself to pay whatever spousal maternity expenses

should have been covered by insurance is in direct conflict

with Norris where this Court found it would be inequitable to

require the employer to pay whatever additional pension ben-

efits should have accrued to the plaintiffs based on their prior

contributions to the pension fund. Indeed, since there is no

way that past uninsured maternity expenses can now be com-

pensated from the assets of the insurance fund into which the

increased premiums would have been paid, this is a far worse

case for retroactive relief than Manhart and Norris. In those

cases there at least existed an ongoing pension fund from

which refunds of pension contributions or equalized pension

benefits could theoretically be paid. No such fund exists here

with regard to heretofore uninsured medical expenses in-

curred up to six years ago.

If uncorrected, the lower court’s treatment of employers as

self-insurers unfairly and severely penalizes them for their

reasonable reliance on the state of the law before Newport

News. Contrary to the court’s conclusory statements, 751

F.2d at 1191, the burden such a penalty would impose on em-

ployers is indeed similar to that described in Norris. Requir-

ing employers to pay for all of the estimated $16 billion in

pregnancy-related expenses incurred by the wives of employ-

ees during the four years in question is more than just expen-

sive;* because it ignores the fact that these expenses would

likely have been covered by insurance and that more than

half of all employees covered by such insurance paid some or

all of the cost of the insurance themselves, this requirement

would force employers to pay approximately twice as much as

they would have paid had they been able to anticipate New-

port News." In light of these facts, the lower court’s conclu-

sion that there are no substantial inequities that warrant non-

retroactive application of Newport News is directly contrary

to this Court’s treatment of the issue in Manhart and Norris.

‘2 See note 1 supra.

'® See note 2 supra.

IV. THE LOWER COURT’S RESOLUTION OF THE

QUESTION PRESENTED IS IN DIRECT CON-

FLICT WITH H.K. PORTER CO. v. NLRB.

The court below ignored the fact that health insurance

plans that cover unionized employees are typically adopted

pursuant to collective bargaining agreements and that many

such agreements provide for coverage under multi-employer

Taft-Hartley health and welfare plans. Failure to take this

fact into account caused the lower court to run afoul of the

National Labor Relations Act as interpreted by numerous de-

cisions of this Court.

It is axiomatic that an employer must bargain with the

union over any change in terms and conditions of employ-

ment that are mandatory subjects of bargaining under the

National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5); Ford

Motor Co. v. NLRB, 441 U.S. 488 (1979); Fibreboard Paper

Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203 (1964); NLRB ov.

Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342 (1958);

NLRB v. American National Insurance Co., 343, 395 (1952).

This Court has held that health insurance is a mandatory

subject of bargaining. Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers, Lo-

cal I v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157 (1971). This

Court has further held that federal courts lack authority to

dictate the precise terms of collective bargaining agreements

to employers and unions. H.K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U.S.

99 (1970) (NLRB and appellate court lacked authority to or-

der employer to agree to a checkoff clause as a remedy for

employer’s bad faith refusal to bargain over this subject).

These principles are not implicated in typical Title VII

cases, which arise out of the exclusion or removal of protected

employees from a position in favor of other employees. In

such a case, new rules of law applied retroactively require ad-

justments in wages. But such wages, unlike health insurance

benefits, would clearly have been paid entirely by the em-

ployer had it anticipated the new rule. Moreover, such wages

are tied in amount to a wage scale that has already been es-

tablished through the collective bargaining process for the

employees who were the beneficiaries of the unlawful employ-

ment practice in question. Thus, retroactive application of a

new rule of law in the typical Title VII case does not upset

existing or prior collective bargaining agreements because the

cost of retroactive relief is not dependent on variables that

are subject to negotiation with the union and there is no dan-

ger that retroactive application of the rule will force the em-

ployer to bear a greater share of the cost of retroactive relief

than it might have after bargaining over the matter with the

union.

This is not such a typical Title VII case, however. Because

health insurance benefits are involved, retroactive relief as

applied to unionized employees is much more complex. First,

the PDA allows health insurance benefits to be discontinued

altogether. 92 Stat. 2076. In light of this option, which is

plainly unavailable in the wage context, the courts cannot

presume that if the employer and union had anticipated

Newport News they would have complied with it simply by

increasing benefits. Second, even if the employer and union

had anticipated Newport News and elected to comply by in-

creasing benefits, the courts cannot presume that the em-

ployer would have agreed to bear the entire increased cost.

Indeed, in this case, where the cost of dependent coverage was

already shared by Atlanta Gas Light and its employees, it

would be unreasonable to indulge such a presumption.

For these reasons, any form of retroactive application of

Newport News would undermine the right the parties clearly

would have had, had they anticipated Newport News, to drop

devendent coverage altogether, to shift more of the cost of

dependent coverage to the employees, or to swap continuing

insurance at the employer’s expense for some other conces-

sion. Moreover, the specific form of retroactive application of

Newport News adopted by the court below—requiring the

employer to refund 100% of the premiums paid by employees

for spousal maternity benefits and to pay 100% of the preg-

nancy-related expenses incurred by the wives of its employ-

ees that were not covered by insurance, 751 F.2d at 1189

n. 2—is in direct conflict with this Court’s decision in H.K.

Porter. Although the courts are unquescionably empowered

to order employers and unions to comply with the law, H.K.

Porter prohibits the courts from dictating the precise manner

in which employers and unions must co~ oly. By retroactively

requiring employers to pay the entire cost of the benefits, the

court has, at a minimum, preempted the right of employers

and unions to bargain over the allocation of the cost of such

benefits and prejudiced the bargaining positions of both un-

ions and employers in future contract negotiations.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Georgia-Pacific respectfully re-

quests this Court to grant Atlanta Gas Light’s petition for

certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER E. WILSON III*

Rosert H. BucKLER

ANNE S. RAMPACEK

ALSTON & BirD

1200 C&S National Bank Bldg.

35 Broad Street

Atlanta, Georgia 30335

(404) 586-1500

GLoriA J. SHANOR

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

133 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30348

(404) 521-4845

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Georgia-Pacific Corporation

August 2, 1985 *Counsel of Record

APPENDIX A

U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS DATA

REGARDING EMPLOYER- AND UNION-

PROVIDED GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE

PLANS AND EXPECTED BIRTHS TO

MARRIED MALE EMPLOYEES'

Characteristics of Persons Covered by Employer-

and Union-Sponsored Group Health Insurance

Plans: 1980

Persons covered by employer- or

union-provided group health

insurance plans other than

military, VA, and CHAMPUS

plans (includes employees and all

dependents)? 137 million

! These calculations are derived from figures reported in U.S.

Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60,

No. 131, Characteristics of Households and Persons Receiving

Selected Noncash Benefits: 1980 (1982) (hereinafter Current

Population Reports), and U.S. Bureau of the Census, STATISTI-

CAL ABSTRACTS OF THE UNITED STATES 1982-83 (103d

ed. 1982) (hereinafter STATISTICAL ABS’ RACTS). A copy of

pertinent excerpts from these reports is attached hereto. Figures

stated in this Appendix are rounded off for the sake of

convenience.

? Current Population Reports, Table 20 at 90; STATISTICAL

ABSTRACTS, Table 161 at 107. CHAMPUS plans are operated

by the Department of Defense to provide care to active and re-

tired military personnel and their dependents as well as depen-

dents of deceased military personnel. STATISTICAL AB-

STRACTS, Table 161 n.5 at 107.

A-l

A-2

Civilian employees covered by

employer- or union-provided

group health insurance plans* 66 million (100%)

Married men with wives

present* 32 million (48% )

Married men ages 16-44 with

wives present (77% of all

married men with wives

present)® 25 million (38% )

Civilian employees as to whom

employer or union paid entire

cost of group health plan*® 29 million (44%)

Civilian employees who paid all

or part of the cost of employer-

or union-provided group health

plan’ 37 million (56% )

* Current Population Reports, Table 17 at 73; STATISTICAL

ABSTRACTS, Table 539 at 331. These employees constituted

61.9% of the entire civilian workforce of more than 107 million

employees.

* Current Population Reports, Table 17 at 74.

* 47.4 million or 77% of the 61.5 million males in the total ci-

vilian workforce were 16 to 44 years of age in 1980. STATISTI-

CAL ABSTRACTS, Table 626 at 377.

* Current Population Reports, Table 17 at 76.

7 Id. at 79 & 82.

A-3

Premiums and Benefits Paid for or Under Group

Health Insurance Plans: 1980

Premiums paid to insurance

companies (excluding Blue Cross/

Blue Shield plans, medical-

society sponsored plans, and all

other independent plans) for

group health insurance policies® $36.8 billion

Benefits paid by such companies

under group health insurance

policies® $33.0 billion

Calculations for 1979-1983

Group health insurance

premiums paid on behalf of all

civilian male employees with

wives present

Total’°® $70.4 billion (100% )

Amount paid entirely by

employers and unions’? $30.9 billion (44%)

* STATISTICAL ABSTRACTS, Table 870 at 523.

° Id.

billion, which, multiplied by 4, equals $70.4 billion.

‘t 44% of employers or unions pay the entire cost of employer-

or union-provided group health insurance on behalf of all civilian

employers. See note 6 supra. That percent of the $70.4 billion in

total premiums paid on behalf of civilian employees with wives

present, see note 10 supra, is $30.9 billion.

A-4

. mount paid in whole or in

part by employees’? $39.5 billion (56% )

Group health insurance

benefits paid on behalf of all

civilian male employees with

wives present?® $63.2 billion (100% )

Number of Lifetime Births _

Expected Per 1000 Wives Aged

16-39 in 1980"* $2,100

56% of all civilian employees covered by employer- or union-

provided health insurance plans paid all or part of the cost of the

insurance. See note 7 supra. That percent of the $70.4 billion in

group health insurance premiums paid on behalf of all civilian

male employees with wives present, see note 10 supra, is $39.5

billion.

8 48% of $33 billion in total benefits paid in 1980 is $15.8 bil-

lion, which, multiplied by 4, equals $63.2 billion.

* STATISTICAL ABSTRACTS, Table 870 at 523.

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR

HARD COPY AT THE TIME OF FILMING.

IF AND WHEN A BETTER COPY CAN BE

OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE WILL BE

ISSUED.

A-5

CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS

Consumer income

Serves P G0. No. 131

Characteristics of

Househoids and Persons

Receiving Selected Noncash

Benefi-*

(With comparak’ ee

U.S. Department

of Commerce

BUREAU OF

THE CENSUS

A-6

Table 17. Plan ah 190 on TTY Morkars 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer: oF Union-Provided Group Meaith

Status in taac” "7* ot Employer or Union Contribution, Wage or Salary income, and Poverts

Status in 1980

(SERS ie RUBEN. PERSONS 28 OF mene 1801. °OR Canes trees. set text) .

ete

cutee

C1 ba@l OF Saaey fecone i ——

| ore

MACCTED Ceamacrearsy ! [ee INCOME) SCaw Iecoee

7 | ! (OM Laas) | ‘omanse

| pap nap Saas jonas Doma {)uompe:1 boner BA Ge mares ers

a ee 816, 699) 810, O24, 099) 036.098 see,eee) oven. ~—a queen! ma qnaca meet eae

1 ’

aa | a et

oor ees : a ae

TOM ee ee ee OO RM) 8 OOS) 12 ae 7 © 798] 7 407) 2 FOP] 4 aSOine 208) seine 220 o>). eea ne

ret @& “G2 1eeece a a |

tweiet “treerm item seges. 2. CC ~) oF 727) Send) © esa) aay sero. so 6) oe mt ee ee be ee) & a8e! a.e

oe 4 / & ‘ 3.3

Sassen tet et et te Weiss one) iether, teh EL 2

"sss s+ OO Bee) 5 eee) © See! +S. 32208) 2 eee tl eee ann “ae ee 8 De as) “ta; 3.8

i '

| | aod | |

eee ee ee lee) 2 ’ 201) 2h) | oh oa a le om i ve) see) 2.8

. . ‘4* She) ’ i ? 3 .

Sees eee ie] a) sae sae a Pa Soe Breiaa sea} tase sae tae) Ree ck

Teese necsnse “ss ees so) 12 MOO) 8 Be) 8 amet 8 2 i soe soe 20.43 S20) e417 u” yee, 2.?

| i ' j

° . : ‘oe ame, : ot tee 2.2

Se) SSCS ST ae sash ol ica glean ee a

- of .as = Lad *] m " oT ba | avyaa <0a) a ™%, 8 fa) ee

| | |

te fernnes. . To ee eae eS | 9 fee 6 eee fe Tee) a2 pm | . * 30 68 27) 62 pes) tebe ie 0:9) ee ee "2 292 2.2

i -- itn enee «© a , 3 " 1 3a) 3 Pe lf Le © 7 «63 72?) 63 ee? e°9' 18 se) 60,20 ¢7 - 2 2.9

— > « a 3 1a - : ; onl om : si ty sf e - ‘2 >

a) quencies Rie rhe as} '“S) Rf ye r ae a} 2 ase 337 eats ats ee “ae 44.8

POT eTED ie@i vious. eeeees of aa te) ~~ #2 -_ jo 62 ‘ — one} a” Miu) *19) 1*e be Se wa eer 9.8

- | j | i | /

’ ~~ aa. Le See ee s oe) per) ed ua ‘2 6 te @ See a ‘ei ee

Rg aae 2: RBS SIRs See Bee RSs

“ ** e-* eet es ' 4 4 a j i”: °

its ke 6 6.6 6 4% o ia 230) 4 ‘i i) ae 2a 4 { “a s7e/k? 989) se?) ue 92: \o) ure

10 ee tans “ee ee wenn) © OR, hie. a ee ne 1 ‘_ ~ 299,59 989; ieiiie 220) «= ge?) set 2

3 GS GD GM... ts «| Mee) m 203) . 7 - bad 08 Me Seelig eae) gaa s@ i.e

CEKS FORKED Oe hee | | | i | | | |

rere | 27)) 9 603) 09 aie! us ree) 12 OFF) 6G Pye OF s87) 2 797) 5 uSel ue de9) *S) ke 220) 3) 6 662) 2.8

eennne a! ' s3e) 3 OLS bk O23) 1D Ded fi Sea) $ eee; 67 102° 2 388) § 13019 ape! on bee) 03) 1 97 2.9

3a3 ES) Sits SS aw sem Bee So

Zac ig BiB 2 Ee 3 2 AB gee & Bs

ty a ‘ ' ‘ Bai kd.

eerete at er | “eH 179} * ?, a a2) 5 \ee,) *3) © oun rT. 123) tLe

j j | | ]

Kowartion | | | |

etene, “vicimicin, i arte: axing’) *S ft) 902) 9 ee aoe 7 197! 2 307) 4 iSelre p09! ele 220) *)' . @e2) 28

OTS om, Ticmica, 2. os. 12 ibe fee) 4 a 2 SF 2 8h) Ck 8a) 2 exes? O72) = a Pei ze 120! i” ire i.e

oo sree tie fey | se‘ Fon ‘gen, Sept MBER LAS gpaias Lau ee

Qsticn on tniniad cimins °°: * || 1a Me) peels teal a gent Leer) se) 3) sejse eeel oats cos! eg! eel ale

rt oe «© oomages. . . . | ‘or a) 1 * ae Dee 1 | Pat BOhA7 093) wvRIte user = gaa) ake) 2.3

Sea coe, ee ee

ements. Uacery oe i 33 se | te ast ty aly oe 248/13 seal ed se

MAvICE vonenes, -t * 4 i”) tay ry 3 aeae ‘ .

ek 7) : | e” a ua . . 3) 9 093) = rae) 1e ose: ' * ee

eo 205) 9 003! a3 ate! as Yee) 12 O77) 8 te, OF o3, 1 eer 2

xs | | a) oe « eee) etude

Lead 7” ‘ Sal ‘ ah sve) ia une

> ee2; = 203 sv oe ” 335) am, «ah DL?

40 900) 1 898) 5 eet) fe 8 i) 200m) 2 taht) |= 997? Se

eed veal 2 eee fh fe Cy \” 39% 3,7

7 4 Se Mes 473) 4 92) 103) ae 2.°

'/ an til) ae rs - * i

3 a” on - seo) be 33 ~- i

y are) 4 29d) 2 teeny te : 1) (28) +e

ea, mo) kk i anh BS oe 706 oe 2.8

2 sxe! a . s2e@ 2 » oa * 3.0

~~ i. 173) a ba mu ~« %.2

oe) " bea! ied) o ” tou a 8.2

13-309) 4390) 2 eee; 2 993) 2 cay boat Ye 4.8

ssa) tae Sal S| i” % 1.6

j | |

| 9 eee! © cos) 10 90%) © rhe} 6 ver: ’ ” * 4.?

Diee) Fite) 66 8re) 8 fee. som »} ee; se 4.8

732) 4 878 2 eh 2 ize aim a! im 1.3

een Ge Mae

~enl ail e7) € ren + tem ry Ct “t' eee 3.9

ae 976) | 270) 3098) sais, « Ls ae) 210) 0 ge he

“7 - ™ oe ve seg; 3.8

4 - aay BB] i, | 0.8

A-7

Table 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer. or Umion-Prowded Group

Plan in 1980, by Type of Employer or Union Contribution, Wage or Salary income. and _—

Status in 1980—Continued

CRWEERS (e Meenas, PERSONS 65 OF mater 1961. FOR “Hanime OF trates, ME TERT

eeyee

elt weed OF Smaer econ ; cea — od

SELECTED CuamacrERISries | | ] TMD LAe COME tae income iH

(OR art Om Leet, |

OL | 8S, O88) 016-098 015.008 820.000 023-008 279.000 850. 000 Tes St end- :

"e re re bs re “e ~~ "> *0 tere

TOT | 06-088 | 00, OOS) O10, O88) FEN, OOF! BEG. FER EIELORF Gee.008) = OrER ved ERROR ead ERODE SOREE fee

foray ont tee j | | | | | if "

j i i

eqD peter fisher fees — Ss al siee, Tae: Warne vies ele em 28 2.8

Tree OF ESrDENCE | '

Pwell i qb Operas sedes. . . « - oe oF 13h sas ‘ow + te % tee ‘we oe uo. s* 2) *e wt

us Stvtee, Shas. “+e. st 88 - \ Se6) 2 ee ted ate - ave .e of) ’ ea an 1. 2

QuTSiO4 OvtO@m CITigs . 2 2 we + a8 he) ™ 1 one! ath 3 See) } oeee 62 OOF) kent, eee 28 215 Se ay 342) 2 7?) 1.8

Se Oe ee ~“s ee | a a) i Gre) «64 O08 re eee ce ad ute .? ee ad 18 he

i ’ }

bead | } | J | j

Oe <| eaepl earl a enel 3 aut 4 es Rd

Des «ss e6saes eee ne eee) aay 2 ae 2 sta! 2 ~ FeR-e Ne: ea 48 370) 138 a) 2

Ce, we ceases “eeeee . i ‘ ao 3% ak .

GP wc cceese Seeeenik b) ye! ore ‘ ‘ Sev t $73) ate tf ete) ae 2 i ny 2

Rack amd Wanite oni eie’ | ; | | | |

ee “eee ye ese), O82) Ste) & , ee oe) feel ae

VOTO T TTS SOT TTT eT 327 Se ot oe aPuag COR) aPR AD = 8606? fe

Pee ete. . so 5) Gem we) = se) = -_ "] a7}ad 18%) = OD Ae ad 1 «8

j ' |

an) 4 032) 3 87) 0 Seu) 7s Ps i see tee ot ee or! ater i.

an ee ee ee re Sek) 247, Seal ie we a ee, te) HF) he

a » a 7? 4 .) rd ~~ a ee ee be a® 208

see) dll Ed * 423) oo se) eee!) = 509 10 993) =a? we 38

a. . . ial +) *| + ‘e . . 2

i, aad tome) 4 eee) 4k re Ltt May a” tt ee ce | a

~ | | |

a3 te i * ver) 5 eed) Pee) ok he - ie ” . eve 22s) 423 ve 9% wp a

“Te =. us eee 4 oe) C8 : ee ie DI mm tee a? Oie eee 4? 7S.) ud 2) 3.8

3 'e ee vaees . wer o ose; 64 aoa, lk aese 2 a? ‘au Mee) see a2 ee) 1% 8 8=—ae ke

3 'O Se raees a So mm, ee) ee yoo pe? a1 S98) a) ew is 4.8

3 7) os rtaes soe a8 | oe) oer) Come . 028) 237) Onaga ee are) we 8k

oo cans oe DS eee ty va} a) a 2O;12 O37) THRLLD LTD, T88 o isk

six) some | Ag i> al

} ' | j

eee ee ee ee ee 923) a oie eh) * em 2

wom Phan tee SS ee ee ee ee ee ek ot ee Pe

“wre el ee Sie le ee ee er | °a 2 ed) i e? 2 ese) a jee

«re Sis. 138 ve oo “> “7 as . he it ee ™ oe 0.2

are sort — 8 8=6—e ae neal “2 ao ade: Sea) ee) tat) 8d

a 203 4 oe "8 onal a 7 ” ae cle. en oe). ra

i see m0) u - bt 33) “ 17e) o Dee, oe 7” v..

} } | i | } ;

| | | } | i | |

ee se ee ee ee ee ee ee ee) ees oe 1 008 2.9

eed 209 «2a! or, «66 7 8 feet Ok bat) ee <2 oon a i) roo mia

. ie = ow p-| Sh cia Ton ET oo | ol 2a MP OPP a? iad yea 60.8

2 er ™ ue yee dre ae 208) mut sae! ser a2 set re id

a i on baal “~ he ») sie | 27) ie eke) ogee 4.

em ee Se ee et 0 » a \e A7ol ke eee =a) OD 2.’

$e on 7 6 ee Ok ee ~ “ as 2 te ey ree) 2.8

a) ue a” 826 dae e ae 7) CCC ee) - 2

2% 1” $3} oe or ase us i 2a 7S) | ade ba Pe! ite fe

2% | "NS s we 100) » via are mise 19 ee

ase " ‘ ‘| . 5 Tee) eth aa STH) 7 s.e

| | | } ! |

Oe ee ee eee ee | ee ee oe ee

sae " ue tw a ual ee 3% ov

‘- » ‘ a 473) 20/2) 029 62422 2

3°77 me - v2 .Ty “e ‘uM Seie S10) | gee, 4?

a oe [6 mr Ue > te ad " POO 8 Lik) kek be OOP!

tr 0) 1 me 8 a ee save vow mi ie

*h oe chi err) bo -| ‘"_ ” ea ee Se

se) i” oe ae edize S77) AS Pe om

a hod a» re ~~ - Pr ee ee

oo} 0 G8 Ca " 33a ‘ ro o2),2 928) PhS eS

ste " ue n re 7) ™” ee ee

soe as ad ’ a v3) v9) ee ee 1)

on i NH “ 4) sejua eI} 24g; 45 ger)

PECREATION SaRv ices. ” 0) a. yn: wut ie

PROFESS Tome SLATED BORVICES. . . * Ore ve oe ” ve rea) »? gedja? 7% 201 20 PT?)

PVR IC sonar WO, we ee el OOD 10 an ua a ae (9 629) a8 20 Jee)

i j i

ee ee | | | | }

aeanian. WUE CRETE. Term. .| 0 ov 4 2 a9 2 coal $ sue 3 psi oe ol 10 a9 osel

' eee eee eee eee ‘ ‘ “= ar eo. | ‘ \* ee

ous O18 wer apm, ee ee O77) 4 49a) 6 ea) 2 O72 8 nde 2 ihe) |

; ;

net? OF PERSON IeeuneD | |

ee er en an er a Sans) yeeyas 227) pee ow eae!

| Ee nh nel ee ee he ee Pe 2 a + 304 +o 1) 8eF Sei Se om

+. - Se | iy soe lt am oe a a

. eeaeeccecesececs 3 aD | » 22 a seaian ae m2 2) 09)

eee eee | oo. 4 2 ’ ee ue ee

‘PERDENS OF Weniee GRTGl Ser OE OF ae face.

A-8

Tabre 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer. or Union-Provided Group Health

Pi-n in 1980. by Type of Employer or Union Contribution, Wage or Salary income, and Poverty

4s in 1980—Continued

(OES im TeneeOd, PERSONS 43 OF mAREH 1901, FOR SEAMING OF SYNGE, SEE TERT)

tT on68 OF Seeey Income Soeaery

whet,

SELECTED Cuamacren istics St i i

| 10eusass OmLsAS, |

re | “ees joseeegeress-0e5) oen-eee 938-008 |098-008 |950-000) ee STend~ owe

' ano 042 ure

fot | 04,008 o0,000|siese00| 919,009) 980,000) 034,099 | e008, 008 Oven’ veut! (etee anil canon wmett fat

101 og -C Om" ie } | | |

- |

OTM 2 eee eee seen e+ of OD 600) 3968) 6 200) 7 Te0) 3 sa” sae aa 30.0 363) So\ 0 922) se! tee 5.9

TYPE oF AEsibEnce | } '

ona s0e Lg a Lr “ 2278) 9497) soos) 2 908) 1 167 aoe d3/10 #18 ois oes! oo 930" 2.8

wE10E COwGa, CITICS. .. . ~~ ++) 7 O98) £098! 2 909] 2 S08) & 178) ser ii ” 43/10 798 A92'kk 930) 694, aH, LT

oursies Cinta, Cite +++ +e | INO) 5 200) 3 008) 3 207) 4 720 oo 7 a\ik oie i2h a5 390 eri 239) 2.2

QuISiog “Ereepa.item emtes. . . . « «| © O88) § BOs) 2620) 6 O79 190) 3,075 * 443) ide 33°: 6.8

*ttiow ;

dims PRA) | 737) 4 i oa »)| 10 sie 4 ta3\s4 oes) = =«4ae) tet! 2.

WOOT COMI. 2 we tt ee tt el OO oe7) 5 99S) 2 035 aii 1” se “” 40;10 $43 oF) 18 v6 ue 463) 2.

PP rrrervevererenrnias (a2: -@2. @i @y. cy) # 9683) s16lse 233 $3| i 6,

BH esc ccesesevsecccses eg 9% 77) 4 des) 1 999 ™ ‘ sean 1396 sa8iaa oa ss sae 2.

ASCE and Wamitn OF Lin |

ON, wee ee we we ee | Oh ORO] 3688) 7099) © 720) 3 Cool 1 - 1° delie 434 ted! o3! «978 2.

Sire errr res) ae ee « te ne oe i397 “ ‘ 2\10 008 ie oe 499) as! 6.

Wom MiOim ww ee ew we wl - +2 ay 109 ” “u 5 - © 902 31a) © tee | om @-

AELATIOMSHIP TO FanILy mOUSEnOLOER j '

” 3010) 6 037] © 102) 2 69 979) 30e “ 23/10 066 62/:0 $26) ry] ’

ean ea) 4 pa] so 308! ~ “ua % 10 082 cae an 082) ue jas?

a 1 ese) « do 1°77 ~ Pee) 7 10140 aes 78110 eet) * oe ;

3 on eee; 4 251! ed | ” ’ ‘ee i}e' 6460, («0 oa

ion oo se ~~ 2 10 ‘ 2 aise 170 739'ta 129 oe 6

5 om oe) 4 tee) 1 O18 “ws “ “” SA(45 O47!) = 420-42 988) 3, 233, 9

| ,

ate

is fo 26 ceeoccvecceces OO 6 al. 6 ne 1 ae a7! ol , a *) 7 032 oo; 7 917) “ ae! 5

8970 30 EOS ww eee eo ee ol OO os) 2 309) 2 bee) 1 Jes! 00 1” ” sala 109 74h 878) ” dae) 6

a, nn a ee) ie ee7| 4 08; | 450 a7) 309! 1s »” 74a rel Te) ee) Lee ce oe |

9 1090 OB, ww ewe eee wo ol 9 OM | a daa) 5 aes 063) 209 ia “ Tiss O72!) «498 8a + 490 2

ae. eee eee ee 7 “68 ‘ 16) ” u Tike 000! =«ieeiss S48) = 17S, Ca |

OD 08S am OVEN, 2 te Mm ie 133) 10) 10 5 ee) abt 2

C405 sommEn im 1980 | '

rote Covtgtam, ose ee ee + of 29 100) 3908) 6 266) 7 798) $03 377 ou i de'1e 383 S110 922) al eee) 9

women) at a Od. we + oe | BO) 218) 7 B08) 67 SOD: 3979) «8 des 3 10 32/10 906 39/44 503) oo, 937 2

'o 92 cceoeveeee of 80 M9) den) © O99) © 528) 3 10d) 6 208) «> 10 32.44 08, 99 42 997) 7 ™ |

+ cococccvsvel 8 seo} 4 136 on) 220! ” 2” F] =| © 197! = 470! © O36 seh oz 3

coesvesvece! 6 308 ” 223) 4] » , - -| eee 164) 7 68) 108) ‘ee

ee Le | nee a eee | ed | 403) - - 2 -' 3929 o9| * \%6 rT) [ett te

comets a} oeatctimt ane ll 2 606) 1 463| 1 007 ! » a 2 *| 3 003 100) 5 139, 200) 7

OCCUPATION OF LOmELST JOB im } | |

o2eesees 3342) © 16 ‘oa 3903) 4 977) aa de\i0 309 $440 922) sel eee! 5

PROFESS Oman, TECmICA, 4 KIND, ERS, TT} 70) 4 099) «65 800! ern as asiae ite iat 1 oo,

imtsTRatons, 423 “mn ose) 396) 19 ry ” S113 077) = sade S08 203) a>

Pere rere ase yee! Ts 109 » 2 ue 7) 8 302) 315,40 079 B.

CULPA IC Oe 01 4420) 368d 3 S00; 45 320) ‘ 2 she 106 72,10 232 78! 8001

Chast an CImORED rT? ” i“ ie o »” 2 ‘ atk see) hasan Shey ed8) ai} *

OPERATIVES. C200 oe) 1 to toe 2 ry ‘ - “| @ ait anal ' 488) 890) +

Thamsront CQulPuinl Grease ives < 3 20 ‘ is ry - o| 7 $96! 7291 6 9231 728: io) *

LAOORERS, CACEPT famm, . . . " 107) * ? - -| e778; sea) 6 oi3) 17 9

MAVICE FOREERS, (MCL, PyT. soo; 1 ie se) 407! ” “ | | 7030) 135! 7 929!) 468) ate 8

feae i ” se ‘ a - - - of = to ee ee co

InOuSTAY OF LONGcST JOB Im wen H ' ‘ | ; ' i

‘ ] !

oes e se 5 so ceo of OD 800) 9968) © B00} 7 Tee) 3 $0 i sae aaa oon 3

MAICATURE, FORESTRY, amm Fitmeaies . 63) 7) 33 - - eas

CUD ssc erserereceres 101 . ” ‘ . - tar

COnbTOUSTIOD ws esos esseee earl 2 79) “ ” 2 - .

POMPOM, Ce ee ee ey 5 OD $14) 2138) 3 tee 7; “ a 290° 3

oot Speesscvesseel Bae 3 — ”7 5 ”:

Terr rss =. 70) 6 205 2711 ri ’ 6 6

TRewSPORT aT ion, COMM,, 6 OTH PUB UTIL.) 1 363 ” 193| 22 02 1 a“

pei epneasneve ep Oe n 2 an 194) rT) . iv

po ge. ++) 3 120 e2e; 2 ‘oS: a “ ” seri ¢

nanel, (wMMONE, tuo ME ESTATE. .| 2 S88 a 2 929) ri ” 7) .

QvSin6SS amp acveie scones speene oo” ” 202 see) fy , a?

"tome, Steve . say “ ate) * 39 ‘ - a9)

COTLOTeinmeat ame RECREATION Mhwicks. io . ” “ aa 2 2 17°

oy ane etcorte Mavichs. . .| 6 379) 4 O23 2 i se ” ” tei)

MOUNTED bt te ce oo oh 8 OD aa 30 a rt ‘ baal

POR COPERICMCE im 1900 OF SPOUE |

“ORR 1LO, WOVE PRESENT, TOTH. .| 15 2%, 4 © 570) & ea) - ” 238)

cosereeert es o of 50 9% ain «07? * 370 4 oe on asa ” ah:

MoS O10 wOr OME, 2 te 1. 9 100 "| a7 - 2»

+e ee wo] 80 60n) 2205] 3 See) 6 7 aay 1 bee) ” sae)

oe eee on ™”" 4 790) 2 O97 *“ 2 190!

ovoeevecl & OOD “st ose , 7 te ” “ bol

eeeeree i” ase) au | 2 ” ° bod

eeoveres yet n ise) ‘ - d»

Table 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer. or Union-Provided Group Health

Plan in 1980, by Type of Employer or Union Contribution, Wage or Salary income, and Poverty

Status in 1980—Continued

(UOTE D (6 THOUSANDS. PERTOWS 45 OF mAmCH 1981, FO8 BEemine OF Trees, S40 PEAT)

s1 Te weed OF Smany Income | Sceebre

SELECTED Coamecreatsrics MOLAm (nCOmt| wham incont '

(2 4as) 10% ant;

$8 on.e00 $10+000/ 613-000 ' 426,000! 008-0081 079-000 190-000 | STanO~ STamg-

' !

Tote | o6,008 $9,999 | 518.909) 819.008) 820, $94, 099 | 06, 009 Ovte!) sot tenon | a ot a ea

; ad ee * Lani GA ’ j | | i i

/ teresa | ~~

VOT oe eee ee eee ees | tO] 2018! 9908] Got) 9998) © 05) 2 s20! 1 ore seelis 027) iss ke tas 9 «eer ge

Troe oF *ESI0inct i i i P

tnones 6 TROP | ton ame a “| a 4 030| 5 000) © 700) © 102) 3 202 7% 903) 15 ae

meiOe cinthae Cities, . ‘| "es 728 | 4 oie} 1 903) 3 S09) 4 71! 208) Sel is 3:9

eursioe Comite, CITIGS . . +| 42 998 soo! 2061; 2610) 2599) 2 om oe) e910 |

OUTSION “ETOP i Tam anges . | 7 7e9| 5 06) 1 63a) 4 978 203 77h ha 3a

aceton

WORTHEOST., 2 wee eee eee ernst 180 Boat 1 17% oo) 8 Tes Prd asalas \.

WOOT CEPTAM, 2.2 2 ccc ces ce of 0 18 ooo) 1 937) 1 Soe) 1 789) 1 ya seals 1.6

PPP VeST eee eee ee... 7741 2 780) 6 Foal 8 ae 78 a2 130/43 ry

SH wc cesecesecsececcel 9 980 422 eas; 4 4 mn asa 17/49 Pm

+ «| @@ Fen!) 2079) oo) 8 +08) Sone 3 a4 1 one Serius i

oot 22230) 370 Pery ' oe) ue “ss sy 4a 4.0

«of £8 sae 3 ae a7} vw sus .

Bm PORES, «2 we wwe eo oo | 89-790) 5 009] Sone) 9 310! © O90) 379 2 089 saziis .?

_* \SP@rrrreereenay |. $23, 1 eee) 2 3029 2610, 2579 1 eels re)

ow Die aks Gan ae @oz/; i 920) 1 627) § 906, 190 a asiio 7

eae *ELative oF been DB 00!) | 042 Taal 39 a ” ‘ ee a3

rT Ofto WOFeMIL ES... ee! */ 20 FF a) ul n - a¢ $4143.80

WEL ATO ImOivioums. . 2. eee ee 9 OD o03 eee; 4 Jee) 5 108) 7 soe 10 S\i6 Se8

‘

1 te ge yess. ee ee ee so] Stee] gen! 4 opel 999) s . s| 9 3

te MM e.ccceseccecec st 9 30 see) 4 975! 2aii' 4 3e oo ae “is ‘ae

99 1000 WOMB. ww ecco eee e ot © OSD 292 ett eet: Le ee red 373 eye 4.0

ee eee ae re ee | a” ied +93 920) ’ aa z seer? ie

| Eh el eRe eee eee ee 4, TT) oe 708) rr 1 se 207! 128} ie tes

ano eee eee ereo ny 309 um asa. #3) “ * "a ‘ ie | a6

EERS WORKED Im 19080 /

++) ten) 29 909; © oo) 3 :999° © ons) 9 920) 5 O78 see! 1 2.4

+ «| 27 Ney 4 90a) 8 6%) 6 eet; 8 9%) «Of 3400! 64 309/15 ae5

+ «| ah S08 200! 2.999) $279 8 728) 3 3126) 4 030 $3aja? be

ool 8 108 on 7) ie a ata i.

ook 8 Oe 100 sve) asl “ ” “? ra

~*) £000 eee! co 10 ” 1 a2 . ‘ 1

oo} 8 0% *7 ou 168 oy ” ry is) 9 3

<+| 2 66) 2.959) 5 509) © O71: 9.998! © 091; 3328) 4 O78 is 24

eens.) 5 Jos a o7) 1 OM! 4 208 See} Mod 303! ase ve

S 6 AOninigTRerons, Cac, femm .) 3 77% so? aoe ou ooo a “ua 209/21 8

«| § 203 tas 133 203) 203, is 100 a ois 1.0

+) 9 799 oi) 8 1 oo 77" #20) ise ssiie a

oo) 0900 a7 ‘ ra 4 089 7 1 ue 409

ont Foe oe ” 19) ue dina da

oo} 8 870 “ 201 a 463) “" ie u “is be?

4 «| & 297 ise jae a” “” 3 ahaa $e

‘ weueerne.| 2 279 se? 9 % a7t) ism ” 7 a, ¢ ta

COMERS eee ee ee ee | ODD ” “ tal cy ‘ - aj) is.a

+. «| ies) 2649) 9 S08) © On nee som as) 4 076 seo) 19

a. ” oe - i i 9

eee “ ry 63) . 13/20

ooo) 8 ae Poe) ’ 333) a a3) ” ami

eco, 8 Sei) 4 90 ’ 19 442 3” issue

cana. pity . is th sas! m1 ae? eviie

oes) 3 ass 093) Sea “ 40? esis

wri.) 2 709 108 2 % 1 se ww ms

eoel & SO 0 300 1 204 ” sajie

e+ «| 8 909 see ve) i) 203) ” delis

Te. .| 8 77 aus a3) aywi- 49 132 ry) oes

eee oe i768 4 sam " cr ious

eee dee st io is , “6

--¥4 Mavicts. 109 ”7 ” i” ie a aa

Pnoresst an MEL ATED SAVICES. . | 9 942 soo! 4971) 4 4s tae ues is serisa

Panic tsotnisteation. = coves ccoel & 3 108 199 a ‘ 120) “ ajis

PORK CAPERIEMCE in 1980 OF tPousE

meahtCo, wousd eassent. form. -| 1 703! 5 one) sess! 6 3991! 3 07 2 707 oe? 902/19 12

419 700! 4 339) Seem 5 as7e 4 787 so) aesrae 6.’

ae 309) oil , asviie a

hs i, J , de) aes 43 1 orlin 9014 32

TT. > See eee ae a 438) 4 Oe ‘ ry rrr 20647 { 1.8

9 OG900MB, wee occes 399 #12) ’ ase 1749 @ . ae 19

YY... PPR Tare S rt a 398 10¢ oaiie ” a

Oe ” vt rt ry! rT 3o| 20 25 oman on se 4,7

A-10

Table 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer. or Union-Provided Group Health

Plan in 1980, by Type of Empioyer or Union Contribution, Wage or Salary income, and Poverty

Status in 1980—Continued

(RELA IN THOUSANDS, PERSONS AD OF HaRCH 1981. FOR SEAMING OF SYNBGLS, SCE TEXT)

;

| (ueeter

O17) 9008 Om Seueey incon | eoveer

whvds

MLCCTEO Cuanacreatsrics (MED IAw imeGmd) wham income |

(OMLeASs §— (OM eS, }

$1 | #9+000! 616-000! #13000! #70, 000) 623-090! 633, 000) #30, 000) Stano-) ‘steno. ' pev-

19) to ty r ’ 9 amo “a0 | sar ur

TOT, «64,998 09,999) 614,009) 219, | 826,099) 636,009) see,009| over! varut canen) veut’ (8non sumeet are

tr we vt: j '

~ | | |

pS | |

WM cc ce eocesesesee of 89 OO 7, 2008; 3 10a) 3 700) 3 dee} 63639) 5 one $00} 10 009) 134/20 ce see; 08) 2k

TYPE OF AES 10ENCE '

Iwsioe ss ++ 2 s00} ort! 4 rs0l a ser) 2 2902) 2978) 28 esti 19 300 720 e7el = 282) 288! 1.

twS10G COmtT@a, cItias. ee ‘ ee) ™! ow ~ 1 oe 1s RA i s9a'a? 129 27) 18 eee 36e sje 3.6

OuTsiO€ Chwf@a CITIES . «+ .| ©9060! 390 730} 4271! 4 O73] «4 TOO) 4 ee? ne 330/20 393) Leer ai ® 28) 100° 4.3

OuTSIOE METROPO [Tam antas o-* ‘| or 196 oo“ 10.9 is6 r7797 hd am TT ie one i sae 43a) 2.9

*6lon

en eee oe sy sor} Md a7 ss7lie oes) = soni ae “ 99) t.a

TM ccizecstcovn ca Sa aa sv “31 4 1073) 4 010 303 19718 07) a9l ae 8 ase) 598) 118

TM casseocecceveseesl Ot i: ad trey 721 1a aa 120.47 :08/ 298-49 O34) «270! Le ca

Te cesevericcrsosaseds Sa 349 “a oi oo) ree) 430/20 197) aaj an sevl 542 2.7

eee coccvccl 0997) Geel oie gen 9 2 woe rr Se7i1e er) «= sselae sae} see) ata! 4.

¥ ccoeeoeol 88901 190 207 saz 100 a 1018 923) e06)58 O20; 80) 8) Bn

amin One ee eater us +0 sea ae? rs) rT) 0/33 423) resine O71) sez) sa) ota

RELATIONSHIP TO FaniLy souSewOLoan i

i”, Oe tse) 4 930) a seal 3 2050) eas 913/49 445) 109 20 052) ise!) c3mr 4.8

OV SE Oy eee ++ ee of 58 998) 2 Se) 19% 8 232 we 09 29 «20 Bi2'22 100 The "y iee

OSE OF <WvSinO OER, eves 373) s ”s 7) 0 a S019 991) Oe an 299 os a 9.9

OTMER RELATIVE OF <oySemOLOER, 2. 2) 1 972) (OT oe $49) ” ’ #10 322-227, 10 873) 230 ye; 4.7

18 WOME erdd SuOPemiLtS 2 ww ee ee 20 5 o] . - - o ‘seri (ot fer; on .

POUL AGO imivigumas. . 2... ee oh 2 988 107 02 on a9 ” Si; 0 109) a9a- 17 950) «297! ket) 9.7

7 ee Om |

OW 0) Ws cc «0 -+| a Mee “oe 78 or ” ‘ sito soe! = -aasi10 $0 s9e! ton 39

a9 fe RSP ee +) $002) 200 937/ 1 203/ 4 "7 i? Ses? soa) 88 se ane! =) tae ale

” oh eee ++) 3 007} ” ae oy 2 0 403,22 080; «390123 20; 910) 277! 2.8

” <> ane = oee | Ty te) 3% +16 1 as 106.22 O80) 313/28 607 4 1 4.8

8 wre +] 2 300 “ is 8 rr) 201 123|20 069! = 20922 430) 36 au) 0.9

oS rEees ano Oven, | |. o" Jeo) “a rs) “ ” is 33/4 528/44) ke oe) 4 292) 1.0

WLEXS FORKED Im \ 900 | | i

SOTML Civintam, . ws ss ee «| 47 O78 #s7| 2009) 3 192) 3 3093) 4 of 399) 2.8

wOMntD at FuL-Timd wee.) ts) At ase oes 5 623) 3 080) 3 3398) 3 043) 4 O49 330! 2.6

WMO Gc cc ccrcoce el 59 Ol 68 oo7| 2307) 3 3o1el 2 697 “) 90) heb

0 10 «9 Svesoccese ct & OBB u dua 330 aa uaa au 30! ask

ie Rd 46) a Try ” “ ” . $i! 9.8

rT) sens BUMecrscecccsvece, 8 O88 “1 Ti 3 a ua s Tonia)

sonnets at peateting MM sccsece ue am ise “ rT) + 39) 3.0

OCCUPATION OF LOmeeST JOB Im 1860

FOP «on occ co eee cee! AF 2003} 3 162) 3 Tes! 35 dee; 39 093| 4 O19 yes) at

, 4 ete, wens.) 2 1% 330; 304 os oes it) oes

AAmAGEAS & SOMINISTRATORS, Cac, Faam .| 2 130 328; 488 aes 197 40a 26) 0.9

S445 soreens. a er eae *” i” ise im 197 “2 id. 468

Suet smo Kimomed wommins | S| ita ash 236 234 * is 1% 4d

«1 ceepec ge. 8 yea too ve 2 or ie ve: 4.8

seeearivts: 4ACUPT Thawsront 2. | 2 396 603, = 682 +) rT?) TY oy 3.2

TRamseonT tevieetnt gouearives eesel i” ani! 297 ie 160 a rer

.eerwees, cece M. 6 i aez are! a5 13) i] 3! “© 6.2

Shev ice sonatas, ore Pvt. mOvseMOD, | as7) a7? 294 iret *“ 7 “1 f6

ae. . tt... i ” 2 30 ’ . - 2 13ea

InOuSTRY OF \OmedsT 408 In 1980 |

_. Po OPE Cee eee Ff 2003) 3102) 3 Tes! 3 300) 39 099) 4 O18 yee! 204

AGA ICA TURE, FORESTRY, ano Fismanics | ry u as 10) ? ] asi ize

MB essen Tree: ewe ” “ s ” “” fT) “2.3

CTU os eos sccescent 8 204 a" 302 203) 2a ” st 2.8

+s ds 9406 8 he et 8 ooo} 4 iss] 4 S20) 4972) «4 ase 379 uae 18

t cee es owe oe ak 6 rr #131 4 080 009! 993 203 oe) 1.8

amt PEO T Tree fe 206 338 #90 303! 18 103 3 1.8

TRAMSPORTATION, COMM., 4 OTH PUB UTIL.) 1 ise asa se? sue! sen ie ao 1.3

LP ry 106 au a avy ave ” 0.7?

Mite, Meme “or eu ee 1 31 a3” bP) ase ite “ so 5.9

uses insue anc, amo Cay Cstate. . * so? ue 103) 106) ” 42, 4.7

Susin(SS sno Memaie senviced . . . . ; ir ue ie ia n ” ois

CP Some, SAVICES, “er *” ae .o 13 0 , | 4.5

CATCRTA (MENT AMO RECALATION SEavicks. aa a7 cd W is 2 *) 38

PROFESSIONAL AMD RELATED SERVICES. . .| 2 ase jes Tey 32 20a ie ge! 4.0

PVOLIC sOmimiSTMaTIOW. .. . .. .., ss ise as its 106 “3 20, 2.3

#ORT CAPERIENCE Im 1900 OF SPOUSE |

“AARC, SPOUSE PRtsemT, Tore. .| 13 697 ie'c a ts Joo} 2910) 2°725' «+2 576 025 377 163

Weve, C8NSEO, 2 ww weer cceceo el 959 yas) O61; 4 008) 2025) 1 Bee, 4 O43 os 32) 0.8

MOvSe 210 wor some, 2. we ee] 8 TDR i) ake on on "7 30 sas) 2.0

POLAR OF PLASONS InsunED |

.. ., RI ee ee ooo} 1 20a] 2 407) 1 300) ry on ise as) 9.8

SMB, ce cscs eccsccces| © 38 in 01) 1 0:0) & Jee) 4 320) 6 260 rer) +e, 9.7

DPEOIEM. wee cccseseseses 3 O90 ” ise oo oe0 7) eos ae a7) ted

OOREM, wc ccrccccceceeeh & 50 ” “ lez 170 a ave 108 406) 1 ge) 2-8

| Se ery is ” e, fer) ry) 108 ” 997)23 703, =794j a8] 840

‘PERSONS OF SPamiin OnIGin may

A-11

Table 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer. or Union-Provided Group Heaith

Pian in 1980, by Type of Employer or Union Contribution, Wage or Salary income. and Poverty

Status in 1980—Continued

RSENS (e HOURENOS, PERSONS 45 went 198). FOR “Eamine OF treeaL Ss, BEE TEAT)

| Cve®aer

eif™ sag On Smany (ncome | povenry

ott

MACCTED cmemacruaisrics 5 i 1 re ae a i

| | (00uaesy eet, |

41 | 65.000 010-000) 915.000] 920,004) 823-000! 995.000) 830.000) ST amo~) | Steste

re 'o 9 1 a i + ' eagi sao!

Tote | se,809' 99, 099 914,909! 519, 099! 926, 909) 830,008 Ovth) venue) COROR) vacud) CROOR Humeet) *

or.e 70 (Om far ’ a | | } } |

i }

fires | | |

OTM ew ee ee ee we eo eo] OB OP] 4 092] 9800, F000] 4 700) 8 791) 290 ry) v6} 19 779) i ad ad

Tree of *Es10ENce ,

era 98d 2 det aes2 _ 7 of aee o sora 2°2 ile -*? ’ a “a

yea? 729) ste St «ba? S34 463) ioe “ ’ tee 200.44 70d" a” som 3.4

~+) © 679 937; 6 395) 4 903) J 19) rh Plan ean) = peelaa Ofe 1o) ou

vision” seinepest ran tated oceecec, & 968 ooo) 4 190) ie) 337 haa “ ua =| © 201) 233) © 200! aie ise; 3.7

teton

wenrwgese. ww wer see .— pir ose oer cel 4 “ ? sise ose!) |= S7'as 8 a” 2.2

= Contam. ww ee ee say) ye ose oon) so. ” , Site ere seeias sea 2.2

Lig SCI Et at aa te 3 ta9) 1449 ers) on" ‘ ” ‘ “| © oie iesisoe «3 im 130) 4.2

a vad iwbodenese 2a 230 377; tov! 30a) ” 2 in 023) = uP 42 90 co i] Pe)

MACE Amd Wani te OR 1Gim* | |

ene e se weo esau ne «! Oe Ea ce Bee 1a a7 ” se/ie 627) folks #7 " ue 2.4

MA cease ccsesvsevescot CDi 168) 1 set us 2 -|10 203) «48910 © _ e379

Wowie WIGIA, ww ee “a7, ” 79 uu? *“ rT) . 3 -| © 72% «370: © #0 “7 ea

' '

PELATIONSHIF TO fami. wOusdeOoE® | j | |

GO np ciscwovasescces’ CO 32) 2S 1 329 seal ad Fi) ithie ea) se ” 1 22

wou cp eee he eee see § Ene i7h sus 370 a” 4 . Sits Se) «geshia vse! = aes) ttt 8?

sous WOUSMOOUR. 2 ww we ee) 8 OAT ver\ 4 1 198 08! 2 uae 2 ee S12 sabi aa ode! " 7 4.6

OrMe® MEL ative Sieovsen. . . «| 4 ae ase, ove) ye Dd * 13 3 -| @ 725) '* 120 aa or (3.2

tm wrt etd WWOFOMILIES 2 ew ww ot 3 ie) ue " .i ‘i - a ie fer ie *» (%

WOELATED IMOIViDUMS. © 6 ee ee el aD! 42s) 000) ye) 090 aa soe 2 s/t te, son} sa es 103) 4.4

oe } |

| eee el ae oe ee ° : 2} 0107) a9) wa7sl p00) 190 3-3

2 7 ou. | ee doz) 4 O18! 64 207 see. 2 7 Sian seo iaiaa © i“ - 2.

SES CGB eres a OF ae) 008! . 70! 193) "% ” sha e2e! aan'i2 9° 706 oe 2.2

eeoeeeeere | 4 #es) 12 $00. Sed). Jae 46) - “ alia ses! ameiia2 1” te i.e

cee seececee, 68 se? 30! “93 aes) aus * Shas 205) 8 «2e3iaa 12s) a7? zi 1.8

ee ee eT 203 ” ” 2a) ? . | 77) feel © ne 3.7

LEAS GORRED Im 1980 | |

rove, Civitem, . . . oe .| ih J07' 4 992! 3 300) 3 809) 4 780! mm ™ ” selie 77s) esiis ad 2.7

POREEO af Fu-Timd 1088 . + + oy 60 O90) ee?! 9 091 3 Jee) 4 8s) "a Pid ” ia) 41 3o3) esiua oe " ayi) 2.3

go 70 $2 €OeS ww oe oy 7% 9071 oe) 2030: 2 662! 4 S70) oe a 33 salia 230 05/43 Oe roi} Hy 1.28

60 70 +9 efts ceee eel oss) 72 | 4% Joe! ae) ” as 2 “| 9 3% 373/188 so =a? ” 3.8

a7 70 30 wet eree eee oe2 is? uy us a7 7 3 - | © ven! ‘ o5 Pry) del 3.7.

26, o€0"S OF eevee ee :| ree! sa ao ” 40! - - - -| 3002) =. 70! © Jeg 10) oo 4.2

WORKED af Pant~ ae. eee}, § a8 eos aee) 122 . a) . - “3 mn ed ‘ 7 a2

OCCUPATION OF LONGEST JOB Im 1980 a

709%, so poscecsecvccs el} 8 37) § 908 3 900) 3600) 4 100 mm we ” ielio 7% u ”

PROFESS Oman, TECHMICK, 6 SImO. PERS.) 2 329 43) Baa eee) oe) ae 120 “” Tiae res! maiie 8 ae *

mamnGtas « _— avons, tac, Fane . bat] 7 i7¢ ae ae 40) 2 sire 17!) «= SeSiiS suelo

sat a eke 6 OSS ane thd ie rd ' * 13 se i) 6 901 SP Le @2 oe is

CUEAIC “ “isioies sobeini Senoel 0am 1s es 32 « 3x0 sis/ 497148 934) tk) ae

a « . connease we.a 6.9 9 as5 2 ” 23 ue - au ! rediia oF os i

OPERaTivas, CacerT *® Pk 6 0.8 6 ae a” See ye) ae ” . 7 -| © e295) 393) eo ” *

Thamgroe? CoulPmEnl optmarivas . . . . oy 3 0 | . . i - | ‘on =6fenl teat * .

.aeoaen COMP, «6 2 0 6 68 06 is 2 iy “ 2 . ‘ - -\10 223) = 783 10 ou .

SERVICE COREERS, INCL, PVT, “OUSEMMLO.|) 1 19) a8 sa a” e * - - a9 aoa: 7 Shed 7

Faan coeesereeeeen aa “a a - - - - ton) ‘ei a e)) *

INOUSTRY OF LONGEST JOB In 1980 | =

«| a4 or! 4 e92 3 se9! 4 180 , a 3 1e}s0 77! eosin 2.7

. bed u 42) 2 - . - fen fe 7] ie * (8)

. “ 2 “% ct . 4 - - te) ‘ep ‘er ie a} te

. iM 20 ” au ’ 4 - -l10 S00 Tete e239) = 68s 4) ¢.8

«| 2 700 yoo 30) ie? Si 5 aie | seatsa eam tte 2.3

+} § oe see ae? 107 n” a =;bh S90) = Oth OSH) 2a) 2.8

° 190 rh oh 132 79 2 3 3| © o01; =atelie 7h a7 2.3

° 73 ax ie os) n” ? =|42 0% sielie 8 i) 468

e 300 ” Th) te) 3 aa - “|1@ Oe: «= 8294 ASel ae % 2.4

«| § 202 7 Joe uae is a7 1 4 222| © 07 ate +3

«| 4097 bd 120 7 a s -'te 909 wry ina mm a” 1.6

. as ” * is , s 710 709 osziia O “#2.

PERGOMm BMEAVITES. . . «ww ww . i 33 33! 10) ’ 4 - -| @ 12 362; 7 43 eo oa 5.4

fn el amQ PECATATION SERVICES. ” ue 19 2 2 - -| 7379 903, 8 seo!) = 878 tsi te.7

PROFESS Ona, Om0 AELATEO SERVICES. . .| 3 913 “1 i te Teo! iz 103 2 elas 37% 199/12 O00; 497 102); 2.6

PUBLIC s0mImiSTMaTiOW, 2. ew ee ws ons 3 179 1" a 4 =|4b O92 Joersn 950° (3a 2.8

WORK CAPERIENCE im 1900 OF SPOUSE |

— SPOUSE POCSENT, we +} © 906 oor! 2 303) 2 sos ms a3? 2 #)i0 265 tule o ast

| ee es me eS | oor) 24 4 9e3) 1 One! 330} ie a 7/40 338 sasiso | ise os 1.8

douse O10 WOT WOMM.,, ww ee ee ee Bi ” ‘ 108 av a 3 - -| © ase o? ame 10! 2.8

mUnOER OF PERSONS In eeEO |

SPERM weer ree esr esnny FD Dh 2208) 4 447 ere Po ” s4js0 977 a2 108

SPCRIOM, ceo ce sesececseces 8 30 Pr Ty 92) $90 ier » is Shas 970 162/12 O@ 07

5] Bocce eereeresces 702 109 ase ‘ 49) 7 3 ‘ -|10 s7e) «= 90/48 27 326

@ PENSIONS. 6g wwe ree eee ene o *7 o2 - -|10 30° 333/10 08 «37

9 PERSONS OF WOME, 2 Ww ee es 4a? ae ” as - ry - -| © 209] 4 O18) © 38 or

‘PERSONS OF SPaniS ORIGIN May BE OF amy Rect,

A-12

Table 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Oid and Over With an Employer. or Union-Provided Group Health

Pian in 1980, by Type of Employer or Union Contribution. Wage or Salary income, end Poverty

Status in 19860—Continued

(mms 1% TWRVEAS, PERSONS 28 OF nahce 1901, FOR Lanies OF treems. ME TERT)

elt e068 8 tusey (eto

SLACTEO CuamacreR istics

os #25-600 | 93-008 | 930-009)

Totem | s4,009 a

Sarat aera

or Mas

OTM 2 we ee ee we ee ee | OL) 2:07) 6 10) 6 o0g) 6 O90) © S00) JF see) 5 299 Sad

Trea oF ssicnece

(mpIOG sireepmitew sages. 2... . «| ae ee) 8 3 02a) © 303) 3 999) 2 799 ow wn

westea cream Cities... 1.2 cite ies 2790) 1007) 1a | Le

GuTSiog CimtOm CiTIOS. . . 1 «| 18 Che] 8 372) 2608) 2 iaa) 1 078 ~~ ne

OuTSiod wa TRePG item opted...) OT 2 S20; i eee) i “ a”

Mtiow

ee ee oe 2, soe; 1 338) 8 een) lt b ~~ ™ ua

WOAte COUTAM., 2 te ee ee el OO 13) 4 083) 2 008) 4 9353) 3 Ohl a- au

eee eee eee ewe wee eo) 62 OO] £ OOO! 2018) F100) 2004) & Jee) 1 120 ye afeiiz

Gece sceeecesesesee ren oon} 4 008) & See) 1 A987 “ a sees

+) 2 878) 2 ee) 8 ote) 7 IDe ame) 4 108 soe

of 3 9 7) 1 ee) 64 ee). Le i” 2 ,

. 1 i” ss see ane) a” .

neem F 2933) 3 066) 6 656) § O99 ve; 3 108) 64 198 selie

eee pece ee 0c ot 89 OD 03) 2022) J e:2; 3 90) 3 ag) 2007) 1 OFF “218

Poult OF wevegwmoge. .......| © a8 2100) 2 ise) 0 = ses) 7” 13/48

OTmEe SG. ative OF “eyeiemote. .. .| 3 Me oe) 4937) 1 069) 0 is - u sie

* wrOGeTOD SuePamtnts we ee 1 “ nn sa) “ sal i “a8

WOELATED imOividums. 2. 2 ee s 8 *17| 4 237) 4 993) 6 093 808 see) ” iia

oe . -™!

ie 2. — ee .is one 4 903) 3 1 ds , sie

ate weems ww ee yoo) 1 See) «65 ose Jed); 4 ond 3) i” wu

. i eC) ee 330] 4078) bee?) 46 927) 8 Bed) 6b tea, a” 90)47

Ste se wes... a” 973; « Joe) 1 O28 23 ad ue ie

10 os vaems. . . as? oy “) ™ * m3 ue

CEES eOrEED i= 1008 |

rete Civiniem, . . «+ + +} 30 O04) 2007! © ote! f0s2) © 090) © 300) 3 506) 4 299 i)

At eee tint sani 2 llr] 3a tee} i see) © a0) 8231) 3.970) © 356) 3578) . az8) S03

o Te $2 eeee «+ © «| a Te? 203) «© G10 933) +3 379) «© oe: “oe; 4478 Se]

. aie. «+eel 2078 873 bad] ve jen 193 uae ” ’

27 © weettes eeeeh 8 1” ‘16 see see ~ 33) u 3

oeans of Lass... ey ee | 1 uve “s tee ” a3 5] 1e) .

at POAT-TiMd OBB. wee ee wl 8 oor ese au ” . .

owation © \eusksT 268 1m 1900 |

reTm see eee es | O81) 2 607!) © Oe *s2) 6 ‘ 2 ses) 4 293 Sete ons eels oer in! 3.6

Paaressionac. Ticrwica,, 4 time. eh.) 0956) | 229) 052) 1 693 1 953) 4 083) 1 one) 028) jeesi? 628} aedste see) poe. 5.3

RameeEOs ¢ sm lnlStTRareRs, . -| © ite yea 7. ro. oe ete, ead aa7i2n e251 302/13 e860 cri of

Leh ine ee ee ee | 163 Pal ” as? ise 1e) aus 1/18 Ste soerse ite see uf

Ce se@ S1mDOES wOMRERS . . . . .| 6 087 2008) 2 ise #2 oe 22%) a =|10 tes sesiin 799 sae 2.7

am@ <im@OG® womemes. .. . «| 3 See as sae} saat ou On 792) 123 saa? 207 203/47 or aed a3

PURaTives, CaCEPT Thanepent . . . . .| © 95 $03] 4 397) 3 170 7) 20 a2 7 oe eee sen tt eee ise a)

Taowerent CeulPwter OpeRatives . . . .| 1 238 ” 200 jee 23 183 ue “ <30\ 15 o0e 2 ea

\aeenans, CactPt femm. . ~~) 8 Oe 222 “ee ” a 102 *) a disiak eas a? «

Mavict SCL. Pvt. sOvEEMMO. 2 Me. se: | 4 O10) 722 ase 193, a 279 iC 0.8, 273 332° 0.6

OGD COPEN 0 ww ttt wo of aae a i Pr | . | 420: 12 O12 4 00 3° .38

38 G01! 2 607) © O16) 6 e6a) © 099) + 308) 3 508) 1 299

aa - Ad “ a” aa a .

“37 Ad nu oJ “” use 7 2?

io see a” sce 302 ae ae 2

* a3 Tee) 4 900) 2 300) 4 787] 4 200) 4 ose 373

3 742 9 oer; 1 999) «8 oer ez 2

som se +e ez 700 7 1) a’

ats ie 2% a2 $e) aad 27 "“ dels

1 +02 . an ae ae ie a2? ” »

3 eee 4132 663) ou a” ” “

23% io ez oor 208 208 ay *“

4 03 410 aa a iv* ie aa’ ” 2

baad 108 au “ Bhd se se a ?

a” ” ° ° ” iT 3 ’ 2

e713 O17} 6999) 2 997) 48 ana sie ue? °

3 107 tee ae ne ‘03 178 a”

SOGRIED, Weusd Patent, TOT. .| 26 Tee) 1 O78) © 950) 8 797) «© 3316 1 100 90/19 239 soeli? e239 108 ort! se

a> re a Bt 4 Se3/ 3.035) © 009) 3:37) 2 590) 4 830! PY PT Tit ood SSRs ee

O10 wet wom, ww ee ee | SRS Bae) 2d} 4:493) 4 tas) 8 seo) 4 tae 200/19 08; a0) 20 a) etl) = aa?! 3.8

8 70a] © 190) @ 170) 2 asd) 4 Te sen o2iis ass) e3\a2 069 ; 92, 2-8

evs] 6 720) 2712) 2 an 4 07 os 19e)19 O90 190) 47 023 it sear ae

aa 1 008 ore er 36 isalee are dori ie 768 ae sed) 2.8

10? av? a +20 oa ue o0)19 0961 «815/20 190) = 30? | 3

” ite av? 108 ims 2 dala? Tez) eaelse 3a) = 9e ool 7.7

A-13

Tabie 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Oid and Over With an Employer. or Union-Provided Group Health

Pian in 1980. by Type of Employer or Union Contribution. Wage or Salary income. and

Status wm 1

(WOO) (= ToRUsenes, PERSONS 63 OF meete 1981.

ot “ents & Pewee, ME TET)

MULECTED CmamecraRisrics

vit e068 OF tm aer

<omg

Bewme

$1 | 3,008 816-000 815-000 820-000) 623.000

| *s ‘e' re re

t0iAe (mCOmt | mam income

ee t o |

| 23-006 930.000, i Stam de oer.

! re ' | et 240) cate

| TOT be OOF bt, FOR 81k OOF 816, FOF B26. FOF 214, 098) bee, one Ovte) vepud) COROR ved) CROOR sueeee nr

were =@ vem eaet cr * i | | | | }

— |

| | gee ee

ss } | |

aa a es ee fan veo! sane) gory) sya! © peel 2 veel > 909! 1 seal eoeliy 997) tyne 1% se! 90h gL

-O- » oF; *t™=1 ’ |

a ee Se abd ve?) 4 | 2000) 2007) 2 ter) 2 geo! Lu eeeiie fee) | ant ue fee) g8) 199) 3.3

(e1OE CiwrOm Cites. . . . 9°99) 391 | e937) 1 300) 4 ave! 2 rsa Peay TT Ty Aen boas bak ee | 473) 2.8

QuTSisd <OvrO@m CiTigS. . . « ein) _ om; « S07) 6-759 «66 B28) 68 POS ™ wetiee 008 2062) 39%) zee) ie) 8

GuTSiok “ETROPM item ohed we ee | @ 332) a oe; 4 S57) P88) bal At aus St ie ee ER Ph 228) 3.8

46108 | |

wonreaas’. eepeesceseseve em ”- a Lhd - ™ roe a” sie) ie O08 ates m “24

agate COmfOm. . 2c eee ee ees |; ota! aa) $32) 4 ere i” 2 oe ™ Li@ii? We) | peel ne end ua ae 2.2

seurt. . . Seomonaeeac «| % Obes ad) 1 199) 4 798) 4 See) 4 cee} 8 ose 3 seeiie OT) tele bee i” me) da

Gi ccecsecs seecee . o, © t08 ” soe! ™ vee) are ‘.— ue oie +e) | eT ize 328) et sae) 2.7

Ck ane Wani te OF 1 are" | | }

[oon Seed eeeseess | 16 tes ere) 2 ui?) 3 Fes) 2 OFF) wee) 2 498) 4 ae see rT) pee) ne ote ue 0) 2.2

cose eoeese . ees a oe” 203 a od bee) aa .e3 “” Thia 330 eet.) ote ™ ses) ta

Wenmtte MiGie . wt ee ee i i al 7) ca] ™ asa} a uaa s Pid 7%) | eerie T% “as *2) 6.8

uarronanr? 1 Penny mevstemoet |

te Poeuigs. . . 2 + ss 6ee0res, Oe on ose deve} 2 Tre! 3 D398) 3 O80) 4& 158 eselie ioe y79) 2.4

eeseees coe e of 66 O80 oor, , ae? ee ee. ee oe ee. *38) 1% eed) 303) 2.5

uM # wero... =... . ° - ” “- et) i” ” ” TY Pie ee) a?! 3.9

Oar Pf_ativa of —eyetemcee. . .. 2 993 —- "se “7 aes ioe “ ’ sa) @ rTe! 4) 2.9-

ee 2S ) ee ee 17! 5 3) 5 ‘| . - - - aa 1! 3) eo

WAeTED inpiviowes. ..- ~~ +--+) 2OOR) 100 - "7 “7 * »? “ Ji}is 929) a7Blae @Ae) 299) wt) ed

toast , nae i 2err) 903) wee} wer) ate! tae “ ; hie 292) arse 922] see) tad] a

a 6 de eB. wt eceeec ce, © O80) ae?) Lo, mn Lae hs bce ae) —- iPad Sd ie 098 ise? i” ai) 3.3

3370 68 raeee cree eee eens © 0) oo ye) too. oye; 5 083) 8 ea? Sad iSelze ene ieeiaa 19) a 1s) 2.8

eS fe Se reese... eee eee al 3 Ome a as) oe ‘eT = “ ) sSei2) 207 mesi2) om 2 ed

* fe oe hems... esceee +) & 28} aa! a7) soe wee oa ue sage 029 savin ” 3v' 4.3

oo — @ eeeese « of a | 7 uo 7 - s Thad TAT) & LIFES 283) b oaa 9) 4.6

i j '

CLES SOAKED In (900 } | | |

vere, Civtitem. ... + +s + + «| Bh 8 ise! 2.027) © 033) © 300° «3 PP) «5 008) ot tee seeii? 999 adn 4e 168 ue se?! 2.7

OPER of Fn-Timd OB. ee ee Pe ee. ee ee ee | 08/7 Se 133) 48 029 us seP) 2.8

Se 0 $2 ettes. eee e+ o «| OF 398 . 4 a 3937) 2 ere 3 Sze, 3 303) 4 12) *7e/49 973) idelas OFF as aze) 4.3

oe oO «9 eries . eccecca, & OD oe Cl 7 292) 133 a ” isa 703 242/\\* O00 bre] oe?) «.3

a7 'O 8 ettes. . eeeeees wee od bP a? 433) * ” ua 2:10 ee eran ee 3” * +.6

26 4059 Of LESS. eocecee st & O88 tue 337 ie oo uw 3 , | 5 oe tee a aseiiee

WORKED af PORT-Timd weOD. we ee baad os a7y 2 ed a . . ** ~" ow es 3| 4.7

<cvretion & VomeasT 08 (= 1960 | |

ae a 100) 2.097) @ 073) © S00! J Tre] 3 Ses) 4 182 eeei.? 99) S24) 3° 105 as se?) 3

Pneressioum,. TEOmicCa, « ine. 3} 0 as) om” ved! - "ue os 102,45 677! geelas as a 4

sé aa ed is) 7 Spe) sve on“ cori 212/23 798 Stejae i7e!) =| (83 aie

Ss wometes. . . 2 ww es sue ae sey an 202 es ue 102 o9)1* e090 e312) 166 Dad aia

CUMRICm ane «t . i ee ” me) aa? so “8 208 a” <a? be | s7ijse 749 a ela

Chat? an@ <(SOAED SORCERS. . * ‘2 i” eee) 1 oes) 6b 344) i cee ve 1a aaja? res 233) 16 O11 ser? tas, a

OPenet ives, Cacarr Teangrent . aes aus ses) te) : a a” Ti ” e).3 097 aeelie 278 ree ioe)

CoviP=ta” optharives tu 7 a 3 im {| avs ue “ die te eis 333 3)

\eeemans. Cacart femm. . . . . 4 ie see 313) 33) a had “ 2 ajua 20 a37tan a evi.

SMAVICE FOREEAS, (uty. Pvt. “OveERRS sea) aer ry - are av? “ a #\1a e7e yeeiis 18) = 285 “5

aan esceeooveeeccen use a un » , . . cy Dire 54) & penlad Per! a os2 aeyaa

ImeveTey OF \enetsT see In 1068

rer a sue} 2 027) © 033) © Fee) JF TPO) 3 ded) § 182 eee 17 999 134) .0 108 us

onic rat i” » bd " a “a “ s Shun dea va7/i3 TAS) 4b ede

p+. . ae? ” cid “ “ ‘eo? iti 7 ian ove 330/)22 oe bit

om. 17s 12a a Shad 2 a" ave sive wai? 099 ue

Oe * te a o23) 1 867) 4 878) 8 ade) 68 G82 a .ee/i? e268 19S) 19 Cee 196)

rm © dor aur $23 7 Te v7 oz a? sO3/17 491) «zeziie O91) = ge?

sees at ie8 a “ * 7 a 193 ed\17 390 zee} ie 246 332

Thar. ee 4 99s ad ” ja wn on 606 co Jai ie 60> hitize 206 ”

wwe ts a te? ” a7 a” aa ive aa 2 dele 319 ei) 20 907 34

mately ae ad “72 ua so a" ise * taja2 935 379) 18 Tes) | 709

4) 4 oer “ 108 i se) 6) 200 ” @e\20 387) 388/23 e7e) 136

OUSINESS ano AtPat® saavices. . . 7 Ld 193 i” i” 1o1 108 » 20/19 ee OTL? See 029

cas, 207 uw 7 ” a” “a ” 2 Slat 198) = eealis PoP) 4 Aho

ts" sae uo 20 2 ao is ei ] 2)a3 729) & Tae)as 2a) 4b 92d

eae os) i132 is 973 Si 10 sx 47? Sali? 203 330/19 136 bad

Pve ee “eo tie 3 soe see 300 473 a1\2e 830 206,21 O97! Pha]

PORK CAPERIECMCE Im 1990 OF SPOUSE '

“eA*1€0, SPOUSE PRESENT, TOTm. .| 17 173 Yos| 4 730) 39 972) +3 909] 3 203] 2 900] 1 O70 oei}1e 003 we7i20 oir] «= 530) 999] 2.8

seecserecece si 88 eve; 4 120) 2.398) 2903} 2 oe! 3 837 992 200/17 909) «= ee]se ses! = see} ta?) it

SPS O10 WOT WORM, 2 wee ee ew ol Oe a 020) 3 038) 4098) «6 ite) 68 Lae sae ae 423)31 390 Pei) 218) 3.@

UPOER OF PERSONS InSUREe *

BPERIOM we were err e ese el & U8 o7e) 1 97a) 3 Osa) 4 ae $33 123 esha er reelie sos! 1e7} =. a98] 3.8

2 PERSONS, Be eee eee eee eel 7 108 203 Tie} 4 See) 4 777) «88 S35) 8 38D see 194/10 060 201/20 2% see oe) ink

3 te ceveseectoecessece BOF oe 22 oe 680 602 43) yaa 42220 782) «= g0e)az 201) =a 78 90) 2.2

bt, Sed Terrrreeeee eee) ee “ 130 a) “19 *15 we esi20 969 a2 47 ae o7) 3.8

9 PERSONS OF WOME, 2 2 es ee tee - a7 ” sae ie tes im 7” dalao ats sidiaaz sae ere ei) 7.8

"PERSONS OF SPamiSH ORIGIN MAY OE OF any Bact,

A-14

Table 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer. or Urnon-Prowided Group Health

Plan in 1980. By Type of Employer or Limon Contribution, Wage or Salary income. and Poverty

Status in 1980—Continued

eeeOs ( TREeRS (—LRSORS 4f OF dence (00). FOR “tanind & Sreees, Se TERT)

a oe. s0

j } | Cater

| | SIT e068 OF Sm eey incor | @tvaety

i = wt ee

| T - @ T T

COTES cmamecTEaistics | } j | en te

- | j | | | (0@eams, (Dans

es covers | overage |0tS- ees |e8- 58) 088-008! e50-008 jons.ene! Stamm. | Stano-) =

' ato 7“

rete en 00, OFF bie, | 810+ 908) 820,009) 534,000) see, 08) Owta) Meohedl qanen' "VE (ORO sumeee f4°e

. ' 2° eer - — i i i T |

= j } i

toons |

a ea a a . Pee ee ee ee S| oe a0) sa} 7730 731) «987 he

Trea ow MCs ioemce

1e010G <reerm item sagas. . . . . . .| © ba?! 4 us?) 2 oan) 2 Opel 6b 308 3 i” 0 s2i ak 200) a? 7e3) 3.2

| © tee} m9) 1a 1 “ a u 179-4 2280) 304 eS er

| © %e #23) 1 S20) 6 ead ~*~ aor ice a soe in dae 139) 2.7

; 3% 20) 5 see) Ae a” " “ iv) aaa, © 293; e? sea «et

ati | j

| 2 os) Mees nT i “ “ serie ee i” ve" 9.4

|; ae “7 eed *70 ua »” 1° 132 10 ee? ie Smee

. ose, | Tee) 61 en 9 i” 7 is 193 1@ 336 23) a9! ©.¢

2 390 wae ve) ‘eo’ oo “ ua Salsa ete aa ss) 2.8

200k An® Weel in OF éin® | i |

' '

.) oo seer) 35 33en) 4 78 323 a a7 i0 203) 10 es “ (ae

mace. a 3 sa ”% v . 2/19 977) pes\ke eee) «700) |?) ae

anise Onitin sea a ” u 5 ‘ “| © 9%) bd | ow 34) | 9.0

AL ATIOWSHIP TO Family moustnoroen | |

te Pom es. . . . cee i die); 3993) 3 ia see ise ” 12) 9 oe! 10 369) Le 390! 9.3

eeees ae ™" 730) Beil is” “« ’ */10 Tie) 473.48 329! t @.0

ne te . 01) 212s) 2 one) ~~ as * ae #10 22) 109/10 990 2? ° ‘

orwne “Cerio oF ~ovieme ote yee oo 1 ses! . . . i73) © «99 ai "2

8 emt aT€D KeePerivies . s cay 2’ “ - 2 -'16 ei¢ ta ide ee * +.

WERE 4TOD InOiviovms. . . . . 233 ove ‘ ue ise) ” us @ aa 392) «0242 470) a 18) 4

Mt 4 | | | | |

” 2998 1133) eee - aa - 2 2! yeas} a3s} x os! sei uae! ace

33 ’ + ov) 4 178) 4 See | 200 “ uu Tis@ 099) = baisa ata!) «6498! 188! Le

a a ve? yea ”) 1% “” dean avr 103/42 180) = ooa “7.4

” 2 Oe ie? evo or? 3a eo «7 as 9:44 087) aha ta Oan aur’ e? 2.3

” i ss av? sae Pod ive °° a” 5 2/18 296) | isSii@ Te? aie) a 63.”

.’ oa ” ” ” a . 2 - 7 ma oe) 6 o ea) *) 4.8

]

}

+} 62 Oa] 4 200; © 0:9) 1 002 ee au 32. aie re! reise t9! 6 = #87! 5.0

+} 42 309) 4 bane] 3 6e?) 6) oe 4 023) ” aie | aoe 718) 7S'ka 309) © 337; 3.2

~| @ 938 ioe e280; 3 de?) 4 se? ose 203 “ 20; 14 037) Telia ase) *7) sea! 4.?

«| & 830 ” 392 33 “ x» . *} - ‘ ae3) @ sse) 4 '8 oa) 3.7

. "3 1% a hl 27 , . | | © 930 ase! vy 633)) 2 #) 6.8

ottes om Less ees ee ‘2 es) 19 - - 2 ~) 3 Sie) sae) @ 393 se 143 13.8

wOnet® at Peat-timt wees. |. «| & Seal on 73 sae is) . 2 | 3 @e1/ 490) 9 798 ae) 20a; %.?

CCwPATION OF LomeEST Jom Im 1980 | |

* * 2 6 +} $2 O45 © 300; © O10) 4 06) sie au sa 20/10 236 77,40 734 oo #87! De

reertssionac. reomici, & ° 1es ue *% ne doe s00 us ea3 e% 230/18 201 ite 1! 1.0

ans 6 an se} aie} = 328} se? rey a shiz Jeelie ate: ye7) ies id

s Sere . bed} ae iso aad ” ia ‘ © © 408; e3e:i0 O19 396) +8

C.CRICa, amp CinpagD -| © Oe oi2) 3 630) 1 oie saz is2 3 ‘ “'8 O78! = 08,10 108 ie?! 3.8

Caart 1 js 2 0 ° " ” is ‘ 1 ~,10 100) S79ka 330) ges! ia) 4?

OPURaT ives. fa «| 8 7s 320 oy Per) *” ] é - | 7 O11} «8a! © 50} 538) @! $.¢

TRanspen’ (oulentet eee e 2 20 aa ? r - - - er ‘er e reer

La@onae s . i” ” so 33 is 3 : - ~| @ 002 eos) 6 tal sev tsi?

Stavice To — INCL, Ovi. +) 4 Jee yee see au “ “ * - *! 7423) 46a) F F280 2s tadl @.

Srs@tanen sea so af 2 ? 2 2 al *! -! =| * Cir . orf 3 sts

INDUSTRY OF LOMGEST J08 Im :960 | i

' i

To . 12 14) 4 796) © 260) © 010) 4 06) ee ae Bry aeiie wlio 734 +37! 9.0

ICA TURE, FonEstay, 3 ie aa . - ' . is) ‘e si:

., ar so 2 7 ae , ? 5 - -| ie) ie) ‘e of

COwstauction . . 106 “ oh ” 10 ‘ 1 - 7149 108 726/10 291) 3} 2.0

Meme OCT VANS. . 23 eye; 4197 re) ” ? + 8 a’? 5 136! @.3

ae . 1 ive av? ” 27 ue 3 -|40 23 208/10 #4 o3/ 9.3

4 333 a” oes *22 433 " a? 3 -| @ 903 220) © 203 73) e.7

TRemsPoaTarion, Comm, 07 ise aaa “e ae 3 #12 Se) *7er13d das 91 3.9

beet Sle 13 ” ue ioe a a3 . ‘ =|40 2is sed) 10 778 7) 4.3

META, T800E . 7 o40 410 2 is J a) * es3 190! @ e's ea

Fimance, am® 4327 iets ss o- use ” 10 a a) 10 19s! ho e602 mi a.d

OUSineSS ano — Maevices. 5] 2 108 ioe » is is 3 -'10 299 Odin O82 3.8

PERSOma, SERVICES os ave ” i” TY a . 4 - ata 330. 7 O76) aa *°.0

pe siege uae ries ieivicés: to a oJ 2 ? 3 - a ~| # @92) 4 eee 10 Hy 1 > 3.3

S1Oma, ano OF AVICES. . .| «Ceo *e3) suse] 4 309 or 2390 7 10 lit 00¢) — i9aa4 099 120! dea

oumte sOninistaation. eeeeeeee oe ate oe ie? uh ue 5) iz eso 30143 309 s@) 2.0

TORK CIPEAIENCE Im 1960 OF SPOUSE | i

SARA IEO, SPOUSE PRESENT. TOT. | 791; 4 178) 2 701) 2 des 00 su 100 a 6 © ae) 44940 290 37) 4.8

Oe we we we ew we ee el} FOS 4 OOO} 62 900) 2 27h en 3o9 10@ “ o 9 978 Lieeso 3301 320! -.@

SPOUSE 010 mor ome, 2... soe 0 19 A 2” e - - ‘| dd 337; @ YOR) * ant

MOLAR OF PERSONS imsuneo | | |

BPERSOW we eee eee eee eo of 7 P88l 5 108] 2 003] 2 3398) 4 Ore ave iso ” sshie 29 103! 10 719) do}: 3.4

eee eer ee 1 000} 4 100 ims “7 ° 40 093) = 493, Gn Olay ye? #31 2.8

Ce eee ree eae eel b OY ied ”) ise “* a e *| 10 494 277 1 875 29 93) 9.2

cae Boe 60.8 & ae 6. @ 6.0 a 197 42) 2 i“ , - aoe Ms diese 309 we av ae

ieee 0.0.0 wm 6 im » ” “« as 3 3 - “1 @ us See) 6 030 sae sOrke.k

‘PERSONS OF SPamion ORIGIN Ray OE OF any Ract,

A-15

Tapie 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer. or Union-Prowded Group Health

Plan in 1980. by Type of Empioyer or Union Contribution. Wage or Salary income. and Poverty

Status in 1

C_EETS (= SROwheneE EP SORS 28 OF meet (98. FOF “Eentne OF treme. es, SEE EET)

| j

| orm weed OF Seaey income ,

MACCTES Coomecrearsries } | | | | OD ee (eCOME) tae Inc ond ;

| | | | ORQenty (ORL aeS)

’ 21) 99-000 6i0-000/ 819.000 520.000 529.000 835.008 850. 000 ST amo- "grted-

ee . . CT ° Te 8) j i 20) 20

i Tote, 86, O88) £O, FOF 216, O98) 516, O88 029-099} 630.099) 209.000) Ovte vel COROR) em (8808 Soweee tare

“"e ~* vet wer wf | | T T 7 ae |

= j | i

fom ast | oa

WM ccc eweressetes > ves) a7) ” oo -- ™ Poe] o evita 298! «= 22S 16 839) ue * 9.3

ed eed See | . |

' i ! J

ie, eee See) ee a ep7) doe. - os yaa ” ry " 93/12 22%) wee 3 183) 580) nm! 2.9

fwOIOE COnTOey CITIES. 2 ee ee ew te 39) a 208 a“ ™ “ » sahan @0) se sede pod! = o

GurSidG cewr@a, CITIES. 2 ww ee oj} & 308 i. am cio] i ut 123 i) Saiig FOO) | bez ie 27, a8) 4.4

CUTS SE “ETROPR [Tem othed . . «~«) 29% a7) i” are i “7 u s@| © oid) 2d 4k O30) = fet) *3\ 6.7

| '

ee ee 930! ” was iw ad ” - u sahaa ar eee) i oo oes mi) 4.9

mgnre CEmTOm. 2 ww et et ee ose) i ise un ” hd hod ” seiaa 199 serie 1 1 at) ae

Me cceeeeuesvenaevseveces & Se 22 eo2 Pre) ms “ ” iP io Tee isis eee) eee le.

“a. Beha: potas os 7 ue “ ” * ” 18) .2 909) Seale oes) res) as)

ee ee

mire. . Scania ai a0s9) enn} ots} pe] wen} aza}aae “ erlis out! astlie ste 0

Dees we: & Rak ae 6 oO 6S |: sere se} a2 ue 2” , - =|: 803) seviie eae!) | te | e.8

Westie Migia . . 2. se eee ° -l ie?) nn oa) 7s a u“ ’ 2 t]a0 Oas) oerian @22) 4 4?) 6.8

RELATIONSHIP TO Famtyy woust~ooet

eS ee ee ee 1 - 7 77 Pte] a0 " eli: 289) «= zerlie 220 2

“Menor... . e+e) & 90) i” a mse yea ise 1 " 99/13 099) yeelie ie sn!

ow sey heed ied) i” ue ” ” ua . si 70! 8 6gge) @ ”

TEt *fLative oF os sae) 198, is ' ” s . - a 96, Se) 7 #13) sed)

Te ue@eeTtD SuePeril its . +} ? - . 2 i} - - - - er ‘e ie

eae cmmiviOwms. .. . . - as | *72) a 1ae) a) “| “ a” ua ajba @7, «galas of br

one | | |

; '

(eh. ee, | eee eee .| eer! 01 a” ie 7) “0 - -| 7 10 3| 7 oe “

ee el) es) am ise as?! ier " % rT e)1a a7 1011) e@2 ot

33 70 Ge 4008. we ee . ! oe i ua sae 1o8 “ " a2)8 82) @enii? 999 on

ae eee es i! «2 i f ” s oo “ a7 is FOF) b eelLe |

es es Le ; ae) a | 7 a ” us 40/42 998! | OP@lie LET’ | ose

oS fees ono Owe. . . . . ee e ” be a“ “ sat ’ -| 3 O87) & sea) © 020) 4 Q2e

wAEKS woRKED is i880 | |

rere Civitas. ... + oe ee ioe “7. 7” eee fo as) Poe] Oo) e7)is 338) )0=— aaSl ie Ode ue

esesecece] & 700) 00 ooo see) ” ase as oo e3'.2 207 auvins 197

eereecel & OO8! ead os ” as 200 “ e1lie ese ca UE “i?

setae aee) ie 10 TI “ a 2 ss Oe 790/43 Te? “~

ee es | 210) 32 n a “ i - -| 7 128 99) 8 08)

eeeneee ieo 47?" ” is ’ i a - 2) 3502) ea, & *% “

eeesece Jee ae us ue . . ? - a, ees yes) sete) ste

tee | |

Pe eee 27 oo aes cer a3 o e7\1: 790! = aasise ere} =e} ues! 9.2

PROFESS (Ome, TEOmICme, 6 KIND. Ons. oon) se) ” “ 100 " bed “ 32/48 237) = ota 48 0@8 oe? 4?) 3.8

‘ (2. team . 303) 2 aa * " n % ” .6.8 023) = eel az Ae) be T aa

Secs eeee ‘ ” 7 “ ” it) Ped ” S9/a2 PLT! & SOR; 47 979) 4 o98 a) ..°

ear eres See! 02 203 us “ 2 iT) b - vee) = 971) © O97 10) 2.8

Cart on® <1NOMEO wOMNTRS. 2. 2. ss 92) a ae ” 3s? 3 re sae 097) = Feeras OTT see 10) 3.9

Prenat! 4%, Cacer’ "Ranproer. . . b+ | 10 in - » “a 3 -| @ e135! 993) © 287 oo ye) te

TRensron! COuiPwtet cramativas . . . . uae is 32 a 7 1e ‘ tka O26) Seel ie eee) A cat e) 3.0

.apomers. Cxcert fame... ww sea) 2 - - it) , - =| © aes) 4 ove: © 069 2 seiaa.d

SERVICE FOOEERS, (mC. PrT. -WSEPRS. %) uu? 130) Cd »” uu 2 - -| © 720! 3a8) 7° ee2 a ti.

fame wonmGMS. ee ae ’ . 2 ri - - - ie (e ry) ‘er 1m

| |

3 18 7 ™~ see “ a” as “ ev un 390 aasiue ne \es

°° us is , 3 r - - - e a ry ie 0

33 i s ° . ey 3 - ry (s) th ‘s) iw -

2) ” “ 3] » ? 213 eee te 18 099 Y

uy i” i”? ad v ae Sire see S731 45 027 an 1]

Od ” 2 2 , ‘ dian 328 903/12 oe

Oh ice . ” is 1° 2 2) 0°23 72/10 300 a

us a “ ro) ” co $ dae O94) 4 OPa/a? 723) 4 sez ‘

2 T e 2 we “ . Tiae 73) 2 :eelaa San) 2 s08 3

- ues ” ” ry au “ 3) 7 0 betipd 233| = 930) i? 3

uv “ 2 “ ‘ u “ teliz 1s) ese se) 2 317 *) 1.8

2 a a” ua . 3 . ~}h2 282) 4 327) 40 Dae) 4 302 . 3

uv ” “a 1 2 - - “|e eve) @ 50) 190) ar

? . . a 2 . 2 rY i. ‘ ‘ie 2m

a> ave axe ha 3? nu is 20 10 ee s7sie as 2 *1) @.2

“ » ” "a a ‘ aj he 278) § OTOL Ade ae) *) 4.7

2 “ od bo 207 er " eehin a7eiss sae es! ve; 9.9

1 aT ax» im aay ot) Dajaa aM 318,43 O% ae) #2) 4.3

” ae ed % ” 33)as 737/40 443 7) 0.3

i ee ee 2) 328 . 32a ive ” “ “ oe) @ te 99/10 342 n 1) 4.9

Se Os sea aT aa uma 10? "“ ” aslis Pee) = eeelie 22 2.7

DPERIONS. we ee eee eer eeese - ’ oid ~” . ” ” ae 20/19 028) 1 L2;ae e722) 6 oe

@PENsens. .. weer ee eeree 1. x ” 7 2 2 ‘ s9)i3 e853) 2 a1 c8)1a.?

9 PERGOmS OR WOME, 2 te it) a is a» o a alia der! 2 p70 be opel as selis.?

"PERSONS OF SPani Sn ORIGIN Bay OE OF any Ract.

A-16

Tabie 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer. or Union-Provided Group Health

Pian in 1980. by Type of Employer or Union Contribution. Wage or Salary income. and Poverty

Status in 1980—Continued

(ROUND (6 TeOybeneS. PERSONS 45 GF mater 1061. FOR “tamins OF freees, MEE TERT)

- v

toe

cmeter

LT 0068 OF Saaay income 1 POvtary

| wove,

1 ‘ :

MASCTED CuamecTuaretics MEDI Am (mCOmE| @€am (nCOne |

| OLAS) || | OCLL ARS)

01 | 08.008 616-008 | 415.008 829, 000 823.000 895.000 950.000 ‘stamo- Stand.) '

te re re te r re } | ano! aaty

TOTAL | 065008) 9, OFF (516, 008) 01%, OOF 820, 008 035.009 sae. c08 Oven) vue! Conon YOu! CRnOn sumeee Rate

. o- a i }

ad j

WM cece ssccscsessel & O88 it) (Oe oe |. we 223 “ er) 19 39: 302/17 O30) | ere) er! a?

! | i

frre @ ACs otnce | |

(wO10E sO TROPO ivan setes. . 2... | 1 ane aa ive as a? 163 i S310 e7ol1e i%2 a9 | 4) 2.8

TwOIOG COmTAm CITIES. 2. ee ee gue ” . 123 uae ” Led aajas 4 G20'se 600! 1 197 19) 3.7

GuTBiO® COwrO@a, CITMS ww ee ron rs) “ tga 4 * aa? ” $2/17 #70! 4 200 20 677) 1 180 19) aoa

OvTSIOE METROPO i Tew emdas . . . . “a3 7 a7 i” ue ” u AJ} i2 eee) = oe/15 278) 1 O82 33) a0

ction

a J 2 ” “« 12/13 0S) = eeali? ees) ae sie

CEUs see ccecenses 3a? ” S “ “ ” sa oo) 19/19 206) 1 Selle SOP) 4 oes 17) ae

ae a a 3 1% it) Ty - ry) 2 AP Le 108) = geelio eer 12 0) 9.2

Th eébeeGO se oe 66 ORS « 7 2” wo 3a SY “ “ a 17a? u2a7l «= eerlse S30] 4 ese is) 4.3

°° “+e, 6008 i” Pee) 3” se? see a’ “ 3/15 Tes 10/18 sie sav | 4.¢

eeeesse Te) ry “? 3s ” re) ? -)42 179 oor ]tz ope rt) 16) #6

°° eve tae rv) ” » 2» i? 5 4 A} ka 790!) § gedlad 293) 4 ade Ab} Oa

MELATIONSHIP TO Famiiy seuskeeloee

J}. * SSPrCrrrrrrri . |. i” 233 yee de ae? t bad 31]

* eee eecesoce st 6 OM " 1 276 ave ite 12 n 023,

A ee | © & « 3] s * 3 J e 5 te)

orae vive oF bees ase ” ” a $ e - 18

im nated SOPaRieS kt . - 2 - n : : . te!

PRELATED Im@ivigums. 2. ase ty sa " sa 3 A) ? |

DR. F ae "“ ry oe a Ty . ~ ass} 27| 7.7

TD Gmc ceocececcasec tee as i” a ” a as ot | 6.8

2. 2 ” eer aa Ise ? nu - ” ” Ty 2 1173 ei 2.0

Bo” era a6 . rn “ ” 7 7 3 a ete 12) 3.7?

_% ty . Seas tee “ rT) » “ a “ us 4 939 2) 1.6

OS *EAMS ond OVER, 2. tee 3 it “ 3 ‘ 3 - 2 ‘eo =) (ea

“| aa ae ee 0 as 223 “ evlis 39 3217 890: ate

+} 3 72? rey} ave ee ce ae ae “ e915 are 371/18 880, ate

° Je? ” ss uD a” 162 1% ” *0/17 370; 43e°20 712! 9%

° ive ’ “ » 3 a 2 . 3}13 230: 4 eee te 22?! Lisa

. ise 3 ” 2 e 1° 4 - =| @© 876! | OTo! © eee “se

° i» Bh) » 1 > rN 2 - 2} ¢ 900! «6997: © 202' 1 oe?

° ine 2 » rT) e ‘ ? - a} 9379!) =P) 8 870! 1 oes

Fe ee

«| 8 Ges 19s roe 00 bs 220 az oe 7119 391) «= seztar ese} ave!) = oat! 4.7

e ae a 2 Pid 7 un s 17 12 oe? 20 875) 1 t18 ei 3.2

se ee

=e ear ua rt 4 2 =| ¢@

i ” ° ia ty 3 2 is 2 ~/10 695; | See'ie 023! ¢ see =) 0.2

an® KimOOGD wOemERS. . 2... *3) a a2 au ”"” ” uu 3 449032! = e@nj is e235 “7 a6) 3.2

PURetives, Cacert teawspent . . . . . ae J “ rT te Ty e 3 “1kh ide Tee-i4 €00 18) 20; ¢.3

TRewsroaT CoulPetet GpERaTives . . . | ue 3 a 33 a a? 10 4 4)43 170! 4 eeesse 7739) 3 138 tee

eeemens, Cacart fame, ue a 3 bo) uv ? * - “40 e60) = «6@S7/i0 e160) aie 1¢/12.8

CPC See e666 veh ec ” . 5 . 2 ry - - - te, ie) te ie *) (6

ae |

esses el & O63 10 ee ee Be a2 22s « erlas 3ea!t «me ev! «7

Saaigs . » e u . 3 ry - - - te (e (ei te 1S! ce

serene 2 1 b} e . 3 ’ - 4 ‘e ie 'e) te -) (a

eeere ie we ” 33 py) s o ? 2:3 90s) «szsite Se) = rer aati «.?

cores Jee 7 ‘s 108 “ » Pa] 1° S}43 102) | G3S; 4s OS) ote ae) 7.1

eorse 2 2 se Phd “ a 19 e 3143 779!) b 190119 3901 = ge? 22) 4.3

ejease isa 2 a n ty 10 2 2)12 936) fee11) Se7) = oTe 3} 2.8

me vr. 133 1 x a 0 a s 3} 48 efe) 3 772'1Le Sez! 4 3) «0

eceees « ‘ e ry ° iT) r 7) a0 207) 3 sez'2d 723) 2 021 2) 2.8

Se eee 262 a CI 32 “u 16) 1 dia 790) =«ee8]i3 Sael = ete! 4) 0.9

eee « uu a a ‘ a e =/43 323) & 303/18 O20) 2 od sas

ss ee eee A . ‘ . 2 - - - ‘es (er, ‘tert 7 3! oe

a ee cesetets. = . e ‘ 2 . 2 4 ai er! .. -

ona bed “aay *. a n A $0 2 us aeiie oP! i?) & e068! ie

MIC sOmimtstaation. .......: lee e 3a s 37 ae ‘ 1/08 Po) a anz'te ate! Lame, es

CORK CAPER LENCE im 1000 OF SPOUSE | | | |

Term. .| 4 e093 120 ne avs ry are ” ee!1s eee] esi!ie ene! see! ol

“+s ie toe ” au ire vt) 108 7” Ji} id oes 902°18 693) eee ae! 2.7

eeece 330 ” ie -° ay yo ” 3S) te 528 79/20 321) 1 oe 32, &

ee Ber

o.0.% &% ose ama ise 100) by 30) 10 o|1¢ e97 ersliz se; seal 4, 8?

eeeee or bo] is” 16 #9) Cy) ” aeli? 533118 ee; 40. 4.3

eeese 337 uw eo to) se 97) ae ae 927 fee, 24 193) 2 180) se 908

erees an 3 3; 20 aa ae] e lis e70) 2 120) 20 $70; 2 5 | seria.

eoeeee ve! 5 10! 2 el 2 2 ‘e) . te . hal (Os

A-17

Tatie 17. Civilian Wage and Salary Workers 15 Years Old and Over With an Employer- or Union-Provided Group Heaith

Pian in 1980. by Type of Employer or Union Contribution, Wage or Salary income, and

Status in 1980-—Continued

CRVAOEND 0% TeOySemeS. PERSONS 28 OF mance 1901. FOR MEanine OF BreBeLS. ME TERT)

i Muce

LT% we6d Of Sacany income | Slee

Lees

SELECTEO Cuamacreatsrics \mEo tam (mcome) <¢am income !

| *ORLeRs) = Omens, |

81 | 092090) 816-000 | 019,008 | 020.000 825.000) +99, 008 | 250,000 STams~ | ? } -

7 "9 v0 iz) *@ ano | er tite

Tota | 00,008 | 86,099) 016, 008/019, 099 Bre, PO 030. 990) cee. cee OvER) weuud|) CAROR) vacud. CORD mUMeE® 6 'E

* ‘ Pert ace Li

ba Ls § '

TOTM we eee eeesresrves i ae 3323 7 a0 ae J ae . -| ? tie 231) @ 8% ae 8) e.a

TYPE oF ACS (OENCE ' }

MmSiSE Chm CITIES. 2 ww ee a7 ee ize “ » ‘ ’ . -| 7 9% Tee @ 783 797) as. 7.2

GuTSIO€ METROPR ITam andes... we see ie 302 ” a ‘ - - “};e 719 382/ 7 10a ena i) Oa

R6ion

RO, 2» cc ecesce i ir) “ 0) iv J 2 2 -| eo sie) 6 ou *| «?

™ ea & 6 am 7 ” ‘ 2 - =| 7 oa 062) 7 709 ead 3| se

MH, we oe eeeee 02 i” a i” « us ’ 4 =| 7 See die] 8 ere 1) ee! 7.7

ee ee a rs ima “ - ” us s 2 ‘ =| 7 9% e * ole ball *) a2

RACE ae® anise ont ein' |

at a a ee ees oe | alee ba] aa ” “ 7 ‘ -| 7 see are! « eee aay

Mamie OMGIM we es . a 3 a : 4 - ‘ - a7 (es ‘. (er?

RELATIONSHIP TO Famivy wousdroLogR

PamtvigsS. . 2... . 4 eee a Lad ae cad bs e i “| 7 1% 243) 6 ote 2) oe! o.8

Ouse eevee . ise Pi 62 2 n . I - =| 7 9e3 3*39/| @ ote oer *Jiie.@

wPoust oF ° 13 10 a0 i” Ty ’ ry | 7 308) 219) @ hie 1 43] 2.9

OTe? tative eeee ite ” ve! ) . - - - | 9 000; $22) @ ose 208 * 4.8

1M WARE OTE Weramitts we ee 3 * 2 4 - - - - - ie (er ‘er Ty) - i

oe |

oS vEaes amo OVER. 2... “ aa e . 8 : - ry - (e te (eo ie) =| (=

CEEAS SOAKED im 1000

Tore, Civintam., . . 1 we ee wl 8 OO 332 “7 ue = 1 . -| 7 Sie as1/ 8 ere 228 ve) e.2

at PALering OOS... ee el OED i” Ad 108 2 se . =| 8 eas 3e3) 9 ae, a” so: 4.8

SO 90 88 GB ce ec tee eee oes oy ave bed R 10 3 -\10 Se faa a0 yet 20: 2.8

i ee oo ° se 5 - - 1 =| 7 tee 057] 6 of0 en Si S.a

8? TO 50 UMD gw wc cece cee bad ” or) ® - - - -| 9 te' e300) anh *) 3,7

20 C4088 OF LESS. ww ee es oe 162 2 - - - - >) 2 ee? ae, 3 282 xe? aaiie.®

OCCuPaTiOn GF VenatST see Im L960

FORM wes eepecsecseccscs cel & 8 333 oo ue » 1 e -| ? Sie 291; @ ee) = 228 78) 0.2

ener a, 6 SIMD. OURS, ae 32 2 3 a . a =|k @00 729) 45 Se? one s!' 3.8

MAMAGERS 4 SOM ini STRaTORS, Exc. Fane . “ aa 1? ua 5 2 i tts aad 7OLi aL See) b ove 2i2.8

T sx@ cInOREO ee ee eee a” . . - - 2 - - ‘eo (e) ‘eo (e 2) :®

tel Qpamativaisd. . .. 5 2 3 - . - - - ‘e (er (e te) =| it

LA@ORERS, CacerT Li. shes 06 27 a2 as 2 - - - - te) te ‘e) (es) 3} 8

SERVICE SOREERS, [ety - “OvsEmqo. aee Dd La] . - - - =| 3 e390 see) 3 #70) y dolie.a

Ld RON 6 6H OCR EES 2 - ‘ = - - - - ie) o te te =|

INGuSTRY GF LONGEST Jes In ives

\ ae 33a “rr ue » 1° . -| ? Sis mie 7° a

. 2 1 rt - - - - - is) ie i -

7 . - 4 a - - - - ter (er (se) -

. s - 3 - - - - - tes te ie -

de ” 120 us 2 - - «| 7297 ar 38, Po

er Dd “ e t - - - oes see a7 a?

uu . a 2 1 2 - - te te) te) a

aes 10s 108 uy s 3 - -| 3% 38 en Ty

100 ? * s - - ’ =| @ 963! 4 ose 4 923 2

a . . - . 2 - - ie (eo s) -

“ , 33 2 - ° - ° (es) (e te a

iT 3 r 3 ° ° - - ie (s) te) -

10ma, 2ep RELATED SAAVICES. . . 800 had a%2 “ us 2 1 =| @ os7 ws ace n

PVOLIC acmtmisrMeviOn, . 2. we ee ve 5 is as s 2 - - (e (eo) ry) -

PORE CAPERIENCE im 1080 OF SPOUSE

“AOR 100, SPOuSE PRESERT, TOTm. . bas ae 3 " 2 e 4 -| 7 08s avi e 2% 22/2.

Ou CORED... wwe ec crecers 728 193 ae ” rT e ry =| 7 10 aris 303 18! 2.8

Sowsd O10 wOT WOME, 2 we ee “o a i? - - - - - i. te te) $s} (8

ree 203 aie * ze ry . -| 7 319 303 a

\oe ” “ e 4 2 - “| 70 93 4

ry} ” u ‘ i 2 ° - (en ‘e s)

x it) is - e e ° . (en te) te

A-18

Table 20. Persons With Heaith Care Coverage in 1980, by Source of Coverage, Household Money income and Poverty

Status in 1980, and Age

(MUMOTSG IN THOUSEWOS. PERSONS AS OF ARCH (901, FOR MEANING OF SYMBOLS, SEE THAT)

’ | Loe

CunPenr

MOUTEMOLO 4ONEY (COME | Povtery

‘ Oey

} | qT EOIAN INCOME | MEAN INCOME

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS | j Pr roecanss (Ouansy

i | 7 a prerees prseeee wets > em eee} wt0-000 | ws _[atangs a

| rere) #3-000 | 99,009 o16- 008 010.000 229,000 896,009 see.eee = Over) va ennen | wacud | GRROR Hunee® fare

ee Pe ed za pl

TOTAL PERSONS | | j |

j j

} | ' '

“Mmotcee Oars LL lll) Baer) daar 973) 8212, 2218 1 380) 10d} 797 o79) my) oun | my aa ae

¢ nO OTHER Ean Te Cane }

Seinae caccuatns meoicar® . . . -| 2 32 | ” yee | ae 292 se) 208 133 | ta) oom ™ ca! Pa

“ebptitin'ametes ticcti isis) gel Seel Sieel Paget Sass! SSL SS; Ge) RL ah a aT aa aes

‘ mT. a wa ' . .

teat seor: pee | a ad ed dd OS te} cm] oun} can | A bat sale

” on ' '

“paawioe ‘? vo dee at omy. .) 2073, 100 20) See! ai) oes)? ee} om! ou) om | e29 23.8

meorcald « Legs ofl -*.-~ Msi ~ Sie eo. ais) ieo) 123 | a) a3) ae ‘ TT eet Tee t) aa) ie. 39.2

CAPLOTER OF UNION P#OV! ' | ' |

OvER CR UNION HELPED PAY : i |

oe es + oy 96 197 391 2 00) 3 100) 7 Oe.) & See) 15 998) Lo S12 @08)) chet cmt ocm cap! 3 99a 2.7

ss eo 0) 78 Oa? ved 3 708) 77 40 O28. 12 108) 18 Led 12 0a o2 tay) cme} amas ome

t C8 uMtON O mn wie | ! j j j

Tah. ocuh Sael el on: | 1008 1 a8e s no ora] oss] cay] cays can) ca | ste? 2.2

CHAMPS, Wa, “* micitaay medcin cand | 6 ese) ei 2 ite Se I ‘ ae “a ™ can) 77H Oa

| ' ; |

; | |

PERSONS UNDER @ YEARS 0.9 | | |

meOICAne, Pe ee . | o| o | of ‘ ° ° Te er ce Y)

EO [Can . . -) -| - =! -) - - 7 - m cm) ou «™ - 1

saetead ot ial caisinselad * | a ee eas] cas! om] oan] acces

meoitara, rere e ver he & Se & ¢8 781 4 se | “uf on ie ve 12! a2 5 m m™ mm (t)) b 903 '%o.8

"iO; see eee, 2279. 4 008 oes) aw °e, ” ” a 2 tm car!) 0m (4), 1 G08 78.8

medica: Pan oe af *) 4 | =| : +) : - -} am} out a) am =| 0

MEDICALD ANO ENPLOTER CR UNION |

PRCVIOED GACU® win, TH ML am OMY. | Bae oT) saz) ad} oe) *“ =) . m tmr) cm om ize

mE0icald «6 nign taovieD a ' od iS a re ie) i - 2 m tay) «m m es

ChP Cree OR UNION H } i |

eam — < 2 Sak bs > ad 12 Tee, 208 Te) 8 em) 2 90a) 2 OTe > ax! 1 ae | m ™ m am ver) .

wan * '

tans fore ° lo eee eR Ot8] nen] O87) 2 Sad) 2.990) 2 eee! 9 2u3) 4 ane oon | ™ mw) om ™ 390

Oatd FCO ay OF Aan... we ew ei 8 ORD ee aoe) eee ses7! 4 par! $3) ax mm «a m aan 1%)

Palo yy Teme ‘ “sbab eee} 7; aaa see oye. 1 soe) 68 Oia) 8 based | ad 202 m m™ um an 3

VNIoN any |

eoay roa Scan a: = ze! aaa} ase!) asa!) nes use! =e} net eat] scan] scan] sca | uss

Craneus, va, OR MILITARY MEA TH Chee | m1) 37; 303) ke? #3) 2 eo! ” se) chy) omy “™ “a in

| | i i ! ;

j ' ' '

PEASONS @ TO 17 ~EAAS OO | j ! |

MEDICARE? OTM. vee ee eee | 37 | ‘ ue . -! >) 2 1 “| om) wl om ad) ce

PEOICaRe cmv. , , oe av 3 , 2) - a) 2 ° - m m™ m 4a oe

“EOtARE AND OTRER EAL TH CARE | | ! ' “ j

PLANS, RR MEQICAIO . we ee) at . wn . al al} my nt! wel - 3 = = bof > ai v4

8 de Lame) LHS) Ste) ie! ROM) OS to} ml ooo} oa 3 218 73.9

* a? 5 { ? 3 | -)| 2 °} - m m™ m) a ; a 2)

me) ee ise) as?! wo as) 2 43) mm 10? ‘2a.

. 32 33) i?) 3 ay - - om um m so 89.8

299; 4 1%) 2528) 3 me sees) 7 ad | 3.133) 2 993 m mw m tea] b 200) #3

J se 632; 1 097! 2999) 3ave 220?! 4 103 m m «m m iy.a

enebiO 208 PAST OF Fam. aw) oh od 2480) 207%, 3053) 2038) 2 wm) ou} a} oa ae: ace

Pay FOR PLAN A ope of 8D pe ee Se Pt on oe ei oe ees oe |

CHaneus, vi, OR MILITARY MEQ TW Chmd || 1 She a 108 208; = 48 a 2 tm m™ im) oa | - +4

Pay

PERSONS 16 TO $8 YEARS GO \ |

PEOTCAMEs TOTM. ww eee eee eee) 2 O88 eee ee Sua 338 223 ae 103 a m owl am 008 23.0

tae | a eee aA 4 982 ase sae 339 ae? a as m om “m am ——

PLanS, EACLUOING MEDICAIO.. 2... see us a! eo “ *. sel) cme, mm m 23)| s.6

MECICAIDs TOTM. 6 ee ee ee ees $4 8 = i = b+ ev a! 16) = = tar | = - + 8

Oica ees eee eee stee ' .

o1Ce — ores | oh inion eee ois aye aie oY 80 xn 10 ? - m m “m am 207 (98.8

a Pps

OvIOED GROUP MEAL TH PLAm omy. .| 100; a7) 338) 93) 287] ee] ae % sel car) oom} oom] oem] oe laace

ewrcren ge tow r** «| 0 ise ema) 2506) Saiz) Fuse eee) 42 298) err) «3 m am ay} cea} b 998) 3.0

wee Lied

Pay FOR PLAN, +22] 8% 798 eo yee eve r982 @e3/ 1 08) eee ase ™ m ™ m 299/ 3.5

ChanPyS, va, O8 nicitaay mee came.) 8 780 aa Toe *3) 72 ves; 4 082 eee om im om a m e090! 7.8

‘INCL UOES PERSONS COVERED BY! MEOICAIO AND ChamPuSs OMY) MEDICAID, GROUP MEAL TR AnD CHAMPUS OMY) MEDICAID, MEDICARE an ChamPus Gey; MEOICAIO,

MECICARE, and cae nae aauTh Gay) OF mabtentos EOI CARE, an® GhOUP MEAL TH OMY,

A- a,

Table 20. Persons With Health Care Coverage in 1980, by Source of Coverage, Household Money Income and Poverty

Status in 1980, and Age—Continued

CRVROEES [6 THOUTENOS. PERSONS 25 OF MARCH 1081, FOR MEamree OF SvNOQLS, SEE Teat)

| Si,oe

| MOUSEMOLD MONEY income | Same

Vergy

Cwanac st fam INCOME Ean Income

st.ectto Teaistics | Pevooans! aon inten

99.000 0102000 619,000 820,000 823.000 839,000 930.000. "$Tano~ |sTemo- —

} vaoee ' ro To! ! re ' ' ano ao cary

Tota, 99-000! 29,000 [08eoOe8 [018.900 S24, 909 538,009 cee, 908 OVER | waLvE C8ROR vajuE ERRoR munee® Aare

; ! | : "

] | '

PERSIAS 09 YEARS 240 ano Over |

! | j |

! } i j |

“0 ss 8 40.637) 3 18h) 9 O37: ese! 2022, 4 297) 1 259 on se ar) qm m (82) 2 300 12.3

mi0iceng axe OtCGh Sein. te cand ' } j | | j

PLamS. CACLUOING MEOICAIO . o} 8 00D tod 3%, «(ee 3 20's a7? sae} oom) cm ar} cae] oa ace

m@orcatd. Term, 2. wee +) 3Om! 4 ere 700 | 30) 88 110 us eT Ai eet T) ‘an] tap} a 990 83.8

s@Orcaio Omy. . . et =! -) 7 - - bd bd ° ie te) | ry Ti) - «0

MEDICAID AMO MEDICARE OMe . + 2%! 4 O90! = 709 298 Ty Ty a oy se} cma) cant stm] tak) a ane esd

MEDICAID ONO EMPLOYER CR Union : | | j

“Eat ean es - - . - 7 7 - - : qari tm) t&) “mm | ll «a

MEDICAID @ OTHER HEALTH CaRd Plans! tan) us 18) ” aa aa TY 2 1S ee ee? Vey ee he

ow C8 UNION PROVE ' 1 ! | | |

1 tse) a! - yu 320} ae 300 198 vee} me) oc! ou) oa wl is

1 ee! wi ise ans aes! ae? 332 180 neo} cmt occas] cme] cet oat acs

50 is $3] 133 is is ies ” ° By) cant occa m 13 4.8

oF man - ee2) u oY iso un in 1 aa a, a) um om 9 362

CHPLOVER OF UNION DIO NOT HELP ' }

Pay FOR Plan : 1e2 - i? oy ” a Ty 7 .) eT - @.2

CuanPySs, va, a micitaay sticin “chad e en se au ° vr oT] es ss is am tar) (md) (Rm s3 7.2

*INCLUOES PERSONS ae my er

MEDICARE, an GROUP ue

PEDICAIO aNO CHawPus OM y) MEOTCAIO,

aT Omar: OA @EDICAIO, -EOICARE,

Cnoaeys.

“tacts Gar,

GROUP MEAL TH AND ChanPUS Om, Y; REDICAI®, MEDICARE amo ChamPus omy) wE0icao,

A-20

EE eee

Statistical

Abstract

of the

United States

National

Data Book and

Guide to Sources

103d Edition

1982-83

U.S. Department of Commerce

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

Guy W. Fiske, Ceputy Secretary

Robert G. Dederick, Under Secretary

for Economic Affairs

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Bruce Chapman,

Director

A-21

Health Care Coverage—Heailth Personne! 107

No. 161. PERSONS WiTh HEaLTH Care CoveraGce 8y TYPE oF COVERAGE. PovERTY S-aTuS ano

Ace: 1980

[in thoweanda. Persons as of March 198! wo Nad coverage m 1960 See Neadmote tae 5'9 See aso waies 599 ang Sa!

Seow Adore ounce «gaa 85 18

~e oo on os

weccere (Ow 28.200 #300 21 900 3” 7632 42353"

Mecncare ony 20 207 2 505 612 ? 1 $82 63°

Meacare anc Ofer Neen cians | 2.45) ”? 237 2 466 98)

mecca (ola 6 oe st rtg 7 es) ane $0S0 303)

Mecca Oy 22 867s 3 56 680” $722

MeGcad anc Meacars ony 3 $4) 1 s28 ‘19 ? 6a 28-0

Mec ad 8 Goud Near pian ' ony 2673 629 2 044 ‘2 “Ot

MOCO and TINE Neen mans Sia @) 333 1s in 2

Emotoy@ oF ursor Srowaed grouo Neath can 13? 30” 4625 (32482 40679 ga r?y

Emqover oy urmor Seipec oe, ‘or san ‘R's #'O? 128.027 28428 e0.016 ' 602

Ped for af of pan %.°0? 13s 36556 ‘638! ars es0

Pad for part of olan 72.027 2556 «op? 22065 48.140 be?

Emotove oF umon Ga 20! EHO Day ? 173 sve 6655 2253 «7s ‘a2

VA’ OF mabey Neentr care ese ea | 7 er? 2008 «65 Se

a) ret 1960 | 1900 | 1965 187D 1875 1878 FeTT vere wre

Rate per 100 000 papaeton Rae ‘49 148) 153. 168) (187) «1199 198) 20 2” 21

Doctors of mecone | 1 900 220 280 2820 «334 «984; 609 «421 437 «ss “ne

Rate per 100.000 popwenon * Fae may) ime, 130. 138) 186 160, 163! 170 76 a2

Actre ‘oregn eae Schoo!

. oe (ea) (a) ea) ota) 7”? 6 as La

Ooctors of osteopatty 1o” 3 1 13 14) 98) 89@) 8 ET 7? " *e

Pryenans adrvtied to US as

wwrayancs * ) 006 9; 16 20 2 se 62 LA 44 390 (ma)

MeSce and ostecoat amor. Number Lh} 9) Ls] 107 23 'Z i. Rae | ‘ss 140

1.000 269 220 341 38? S72 See e's 3 eas 683

Graduates 1.000 s9 7s 78 @8/) 134, 43) 4S) Ge 140 2

Percent of otal actve MC s Percent ; Xi mm), 33. 3S) 46. 4? 46) 48 ae 42

Gemcuasss of —

US ang Canacan mecca! '

schoots 1,000 57; 66! 76) 80)! 108) 113) 123) 108, 163 149

Foregn meckcai schoots 1.900 ; 3] 14) 18! 30! 80, ga; Sa: 46; 36 33

Percent of lota newh: koensed Percent $1) 177/| 7) 273; 384/ 983) 322! 236) 179! 1e2

RE | 1.0008 90; 105 112) 16! 127) 190) 129 7 1m 4)

Acove (exc. m Feders! sence) | 1.000 | s| OS) 80) 88) 107, 190) 89] 19S) HHO! Has

Rate per 100 000 popuianon ' | Rate ; SO} «a7! a7] a7! go: $y} ga] S|; S;

Carus! echoote | Number “4 47; 4) | se | S86! @/ *@o

ae : } 1,000... ms 136 | 139 160° 2+) 28! 210 215) 222: 225

Gedvetes. {| 1,080... ; 26) 33! 32! 37) So $3 52 $3 S$) $3

Muresan, manber (active registered; 1,600 af 378 | soe | 13) 700 808 961 1.011 1,088, 1.076 |* 1,199

Rate per 100.000 papulawon ' | Rate ..... | 240 | 282/ 3191) 348| 427) 449) 409) 487 400 «(508

Sermrg echoos ' | Ngener 1.203 1 199 9.189 1.328 | 1.347 1.348 | 1,337 1.339 | 1.354) 1.360

Saders’. | 1,000... 98! 195) 130) 181! 249 | 248) 247) 245; 238/ 235

eam ERE eal » 38 | ; 7) 77) me) me) 6]

rt i i = | i

MA Not evedatie ‘Based on Bureau of the Cereus resent sopuiaton esiunaies as of Juy | *Exctudes non-Federa:

Pvece wt engoray accveases: see nesorcte. ate 165 *Baseo on Bureay of the Consus crben populaton

are ae hy « ORC Gadustes exckde gradueies Canecen schocts Source Amencan Mecca

A-22

Pension Plan—income Loss Protection—Medicare/Medicaid 331

NO 539. PENSION PLAN AND GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE OF CiVILIAN WORKERS. BY

' SELECTED CHARACTERISTIC OF WoRKER. 1980

Cove’s chan workers as of March 1961 who had earnings 1 1960. Based on Current Population Survey see text p 2

GHi = Empioyer subsidized group Neai'r insurance)

" a Soar 15-24 25-44 45-64 89

TYPE OF COVEMAGE Unt Tot! | Mae 8 wrie Black / years years: years’

| ij e on a old on” on” anc

gn over

Tote! workers 1,000 107.017 58.253 486.765 93623 10903 5674 27,979 486.568 27.204 3.266

with 201" GH! and pension 1 000 43677 28306 15571 39002 4019 1603. 4757 23533 1495! 636

with GHI only 1.9000 22414 1280 9613 19470' 2312 1422 60286 ‘1069 47867 530

With DENSION Only 1 000 4126 1432 2694 3603 438 65 511 2066 3 *€c

W ihOul Sm Cr persion 1 000 36600 °'5.714 20887 31546 4'34' 2264 16683 11900 69786 1940

wir Gri 1 900 66291 41107 25164 58472 633° 3225 10785 34602 19.736 1166

with pension 1.¢00 18.003 29738 '8265 42605. 4457 ‘1966 5266 25599 16.339 796

Percent co’ workers—

with Dotn Git. and pension = Percent 410 486 319°) 417 3469 2"6 170 465 550 95

without SG: « pension Percent 342 279 4286 337 79 399 $96: 245: 223 594

witn Gri Percem 619 706 $16 625 se! 565 35 712 726 357

with pens.on | Percent 449°0—S ss 5510 375 455 409 350 1668 527 60! 244

eee

‘includes other (aces 0! shown separaiety ‘Persons of Sparsh ongin may De of any ‘ace

340. PROTECTION AGAINST SHORT-TERM SICKNESS INCOME LOSS: 1960 TO 1979

mittions of dollars, except percent. Shor-term sickness refers 10 short-term or temporary Nonwork-connected disabdty

(laseeo 75! More than 6 months) anc the tis 6 montns of iong-term Gisabiity See aiso Hrslonca/ Siansics. Conorsal Times to

"270 SOfes - *h-' 24]

Tem 1960 1965 1970 1974 1975 1976 1977 ' 1978 1979

Ghort-ter™ « cxress ‘ncome loss 8£91 ''333 ‘6757 21804 23595 26.447 28223 32782 36020

Tota protection provided ' 2.430 3,349 5872 6.232 9,002 9619 10,546 11.733 13,350

Protectuon as percer’ of \oss 283 296 3s0' 378 32 371 374: 356 371

Benehts crowded by protection

indrws > “surance 393 483 694 65! 973 661 940' 1210' 1322

Group Dene’ 's ‘C workers in prvate employment 12'' 1602 2952 4144. 4326 4900 5262 5762) 6965

Prvate Cash insurance * 638 767 1476 2024: 2011 2267 2344. 2403) 3.216

Puphcty operated casn sickness funds ’ 172 269 4m 485 536 $61 56 609 699

Sch @2- 400 566 1066 1634 1779 2052) 2.357' 2770: 3.070

Seck ave [21 government empiovees , 826) 1264, 2225 3107 3542 3068 4134 4562!) 4673

—_

Prowdec Dv Mawidual NSLFANCEe. grouD DENerliIs [oO workers in Orvale eMplOyMeEN!. and Sick ‘eave for Gove

Begoring 1374 inciudes Denetiis for tne sixth Month of Gsabiity payable unt=r Old age SurvvO'S GISaDnIy and health insurance

progam ol sown separatety ‘Group accicent ang sickness insu 3° -e arc Self.nsurance Drvalely written einer on a

vountary 045 ~ ComMplance with S:ale temporary Gsaburty surance laws = Calf NJ. and NY includes @ small but

wore Nes a7. .-' OF CfOUD GrSabiity msurance Dax 10 government workers and tc sell-empioyed persons ihrough

tem vace » Or°'-ssONa! associations ‘includes State-operatec pians 1 Rinode isiand Cailorma. ano New Jersey State

Sowce US >> a Secunty Adrumstration. Soca: Secunty Guienn Sep 1962

No. 541. Mic CARE AND MEDICAID—SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONS COVERED: 1980

[Recresents ~ur “er of persons as of March 1981 wno were coverec in 1960 For Medicare covers persons |S years of and

Ove’ ‘2 Mecicad covers persc7s of a ages See Neadnote table 519]

ss ‘ ‘Span | Under ic 4g ase 95

POs APS ' unt ‘tote’! wae | Fe. | woe i eicn| 3” | 1S | wees yore 1S

| | gn? | om | over

— , t + + >

mes ae bray a SO) ae Peet

Persons cove - +, total 1.000 26,200 10.962 15,237 23.471 2420' 660, (x) 669, 2,000 23.531

Betow ove. 1.000 4300" 1310' 2990/3255, 991! 206/ (x), 200 429 1671

Percent of tola sopulation Percent 19.1 132! 67) 188) 129 72 | ( 6 45. 4

Betow poverty ee: Percert 229 (may = (may | (way! (mem) (a) (x) 16) 16 955

Move poverty Percent 161 |) (mad) (A) way) (ma) | (mA) | (X) | $| 39) 956

MEDC 4:0 | H ' i

Persons covered, total... 1,000... ‘sass 7,378 | 11,589 | 11,867 | 6,383 | 1,991 | 6,572 7.234: 2,127 | 3.031

Retoe poverty eve: ees Oe 99.993 | 4.237 | 6676 6245 44386! 1.356, 4672 4050) 1061, 1330

Moore poverty evel : | 1000...) 7.654 | 3.441 | 4.753 5612/1946) 635 | 1903) 31863! 1.067)! 1,701

Percent of total population...| Percent. 8.4 6s' 000° 62 343 | 2; 129 68! «48! 123

Beoe poverty ive’ oy Porcomt..| W1|) 363) 419, 329) 523| 424 4866! 360) 206° 346

kame Dover) eve: | Percont....| 40 3 at eo vs 109 | ad | 46; 34! 26, 62

—,. i : 4 |

aaa X Not appkcable =‘ Includes other races nol shown separately "Persons of Sparsh ongn may be

fierce US Bureau of ne Census. Current Popuiaton Reports. series P-60. No 131

A-23

Labor Force—Participation Rates 377

No. 626. CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE AND PARTICIPATION RATES, BY RACE, SEX, ANO AGE: 1960 TO 1961

Persons 16 years etd and over. Labor lorce date are Unrual averages of monty figures. Rates are based On annuei everage

cxman noreretimonel population of each specthed group and revresent proporton of each speciied group m the crhen iebor

torce See also +estonce/ Stessecs. Colores’ Temes to 1970, senes 0 42-48)

CIVIUAN LABOR FORCE ((Tuleons) PARTICIPATION RATES (percerd)

RACE, SEX, AMO AGE T

yee | 1908 | 1970 | 1975 | 1979 | 1900 | 1901 | 1980 | 1986 | 1970 | 1975 | 1978 1880 | 1981

mer T T T

cos! 745 ozs | one |1000 | 050 | 1007 $0.4) $89) 604) 612) 627) 628)

e2| 25! 83/5) 23] $25] Bt! Bs] 3) 5! se) saa) 3

“ 0: | } 4 / 7 f

227. 275 325| 398) 391) 402 365) 381 | 426| 459 | 505) 512! 518

@3| 92/109! 130) 133/ 136] eas | e2e/ ore! see! e22| 617 | 613

49| 52! 60| 69! 70) 71] 630| 706) 765, 719) 728) 715) 708

3$| 40| $0; 62| 6s | 65| 402) «06 | «95 | 494| 597| S36) 598

($2) 3) °43) 997/53) G8] Sa] $a) Br) Bt | Bs| Be

. 4 4. : 4) 1 1

15| 18) 21| 22] 21| 20] 460! 439! 470) 486| 516| 501/| 479

Hi 22| 27| 29 29| 28| 603) o69| 687) 706) 719| 713| 704

49| 57! 76| 85| 86] 86) 681! 058! 633| 845| o4| 59| 55

99 113) 142| 164) 170) 175] 975! 973 | 964) 052| 06.3) 052| 049

11.1 | 105; 104] 116/118! 122] 97.7| 973° 969) 95.6/| 96.7| 065| 96.4

108 | 10.4 | 104) 100)" 99; 99] 95.7 | 956; 643) 921 | O14) 012) O14

68| 71! 70| 72 72| 72 ma | us 630| 756| 728| 721

21; 22) 19/ 19| 19! 19] 331] 279| 288| 216) 199] 190) 104

202 | 315) 975 442| 455! 467] 377! 203| 433! «03 $18) 521

oe]. 95) <3] Sel-ae! Pee ae 349 | 202! ase) ae | 425

| 1 ’ :

16; 19) 24; 26) 26: 25) 509, 403) $35! S81) 627! 61.9| 609

a4| 49 62 | 72| 73| 75 401 | 499) 57.7 | 641) 600| 689) eos

43) 57| 67! 116] 123) 129] 260! 385. 450| se9| 639| 655| 687

s7| 6o| 6s] 82) 88 90] 434; ass) 511) $58| G38) O58) G08

7\ 65| 67| 69) 70, 75] 498! S09) Sea) $63 | s09| 61.1

36 42 43 47 47 48 372)! 41.1 | 430: 409| 41.7) 413) 414

10) 11] 10, 12] 12] 12] 108) 100 97| 62; 63/ 61] 60

p | a

Sou -@: U S. Bureau of Labor Statetcs, Empioyment and Earrengs, morthty.

No. 627. LABOR FoRCE—PERCENT DiSTRIBUTION, BY SEX AND AGE: 1960 TO 1961

[Anrual average of monthty figures. inctudes Armed Forces at Nome and abrosd. See Historme/ Stetstcs, Cotormal Times to 1970,

16-19 | 20-26 | 25-36 540 | as-se | sean! Oy

| veers | years yeos yours yours ower

Totat 1960 73| 106) 2089 as| 207| 190| 44

e2| 121| 194! 223! 208: 134) 4

89, 143) 206; 105) 198) 139| 37

97 15.1 242 16.0 16.1 18 31

oe| 153; 25| 191} 170/ 18] 29

96, 153| 236| 184) 165] 113| 30

63| 153| 23| we! 1) 112] 29

s9| 152) 270| 192| 1s0| 10/ 28

o4| 153! 20; 194) 183/ 108| 27

— es| tos) 226) 22) 107) 131/ 47

75| 16| 208! 26| 99) 133) 42

81| 136| 220; 198) 193! 131) 40

eo; 142] 251| 3; t81) 129) 33

69 145 26.1 163 172 18 31

eo) i46| 23| 196) 168) 117) 32

ee! 146! 27) 189) ‘64, 116) 31

$4; 145| 273; 192) 161/ 115) 30

79| 147| 23| 194) 185) 112) 29

Femate: 1980 eo} 15) 178 27} 128) 39

o6| 120; 166) 218) 28] 137) 37

103| 155| 101, 199, 27) 192) 33

109} 165| 228, 175) 100| 114) 28

10.7| 165| 267) 179| 167) 108| 27

107| 165| 252| 192) 161| 106) 27

103} 163| 257| 187| 158] 105

97| 160) we| 192) 156| 103) 26

go| 1| 277| 193) 182|- 102) 28

A-24

Health Irsurance—Property Insurance 523

NO. 669. PrivaTE HEALTH INSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS—INCOME AND EXPENSES: 1960 TO 1979

fn aAERD OF Galera, encepl pereEnt. Himes agp (-) Conenee tose See siso ++stonca/ Statsecs, Colorual Times to 1970. senes

957-962)

rum reo | 1908 | vo70 | sore | s973 | sere | v975 | w97e | 1977 | 1978 | 1979

3 t T t ,

premium income $841 9.993 | 17.075 (22,386 (24,845 (27,777 32,437 | 38.172 |44,619 49,602 55.059

Case cme ae ~~~" EES 1B.T3D '1SEN9 | 10008 121001 [90450 'SD0TE SET 1aBetS ianbes 50.176

Percem of premeaum income... ' 655; 674; 915, 654; 649 661' 927' 929! 897° 906: 498

Operanng exoense.... cu (OME 1417! 2.290. 3°92 | 3488 9887 4199) 4.789 5.484: E108! 7.1°6

Net wader gah te () -162| -934: 00 | 206 | ~578 i- 1,028 |-2.088| - 980 \~ 1.546 | 1,493

a pt So am be \2.482 4.160) 7.971: 9.923 |11.059 '12:387 14.446 17.268 | 19,553 |21,547 (23.471

Clans experse.. Sepet a '2.287 3.912 7.060 6991 10.004 )11.640 :4.192 16.227 '17626 | 19.465 (21 724

SAARI ee | 609 | 775! 911) 1,069) 1.193) 1.330; 1502! 1.716

243| 200, -164| -809! -151| 597 so; 3

‘ ' '

636 11,052 | 11.944 | 13,151 | 14.649 | 16.752 |19.395 20.667 |23.035

$31 | 68615 | 9.480 | 10.802 | 13.157 | 15.493 117.206 19.057 |20.145

567| —161 -1086 | ~473 ~—1.216 '~2,064 — 1623 |-2.359 |—1 783

1,383 | 18642! 2.259 3142) 4.151 6.790; 7.279 9.353

rx ab

Source: Through 1975. US Soca Secunty Admwreraton Scos/ Securty Bullebr. venous seues. and unpLbDiEned deta.

thereafter US. Health Care Financing Adrrwustravon. ~ea/tn Care Financing Review, Summer 1961

No. 870. HEALTH INSURANCE—PREMIUM INCOME ANDO BENEFIT PaYMENTS: 1960 TO 1980

(m batone of cetera. Represents prema sicome of and benetis pest by weuence comparuss onty. Segrwung 1975. netudes

Puente F.co and other U.S. cutting Meacal-souety plans, and af

otner independent piens!

"le T | | , ‘

1960 | 1965 | 1970 1972, 1973 | 1974 ' 1975 1978 | 1977. 1978 | 1979) 1980

i i i = a 1 i .

T ; | |

a7| 7a! — | 101! oa! ae! 245! oo | aaa wal as

291) 47 61 109! 1186/ 132; 183: 194) 232; 269) 31.7: 368

1.8) 27 34/ 38; 43 4 <8 | 51| $4| $8) 62) 69

31; 62 9.1 | 106] 119) 136 16.8! 202!) 221| 24) 31.7! 370

24' 40. 75; 89! 98! 1141 1421 178! 1951 229) 279| 330

7) 12) 16) 7) 24) 22) 23) 24| 26| 35| 38) 40

«| 10 | al 20! 22| 28) 27' 29) 31] 34) «7! 53

22 41; 74! 65) 94} 108] 132) 161! 176] 21.2] 268) 209

mwa)! (way| 9) 2 3 3; | 12 | 1$] 18) 22] 20

4. : A Pt

to written prermmums: for 1972-80 refers to sarned income ‘insurance company

75 twougn 1980 inciude Aormuusvauve Service Agreements and Minwnum Premsum

yeers contam only @ porton of these data *Begnrung 1972. excludes accidental death and

Gememberment benetts and ecadent mecca rewnts benefrts

NO. 671. PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANC AD TO 1981

rmuitions of dollars. except compenies reporting. Premaums wrtien represent ota! on aft Colmes wntien

ny ty yy ty ye ee oe

’ ! og H / :

1980 | 1986 1970 | tere | vers | v9Te | 977 | 1878 | 1979 1900 | 1961

T T | | '

Comoarses ‘eportng ..........| 3.500 | 3.047 | 2.727: 28% | 2000 | 2 880 | 2.940| 2938 | 2.867 (ma) : (ma)

Promiume written’... ' 14,973 | 20,063 |32,067 | 45,152 | 49,967 60,418 '72,397 61.69C 90,123 4569 99,276

AAD uabéity 3.883 | 5.424 | 0.950 12,010 |13.315 | 16.082 ;18.829 | 20,289 | 22.102 | 23.219 24.295

Prymcal Y 2.061 | 4824 | 7,064 7.623 | 9.565 |11.521 | 12.835) 14,538 | 15833 | 16.748

Leary 969 | 1,137 | 2.140 | 2990) 3.061 | 5,364| 6.794, 7,706; 7.617, 7.692, 7.385

acca mas (ma) | ma) wma) | 905| 1.199| 1:196| 1216] 1206] 1276| 11398

Fire * 2.406 , 2.215 | 3,147 | 3,536 | 3.691 | 4.102/ 4415: 4675) «<781| 4784! 4817

Homeowners mutuple pert... 764 1523) 2.565 | 4,156 | 4.729 5.688/| 6.766| 7.792 6792; 9.621 10.780

Commercal muiuote pert... 56; SOO/| 1331! 2857 | 3.176 | 4.052 | 4691; 5830| 6667) 66661 6870

Workmen's compensation.....| 1.419 | 2.042 5.473 | 6.106 | 7.534) 9.261 | 11,300! 13.164! 14230! 14.616

itand marine 1| 400) 612) 1,169) 1,266) 1444, 1564) 1867/ 2,.061| 2.291

Ocean marine. 20 282 405 961 902 953 1,000 1,008 1,065 1,127

| a Le | (ma) AOE 542 746 789 635 912 1,076 1,185 1,248 1.351

Gurgiery and FERS Tie 110 135 130 120 124 129 133! 140 136 128

a 103 117 ‘25| 260) 312) 325) 340 351 306 417 504

ard mactirary 65 9 15 141 173 170 213 256 263 233 208

valk 30, aa a 40 32 32 x 36 3 32 31

Aseepte A sear pe

IDOE once cenieee-nvvvvsnnnsnvnnnneeennnseee] 90,132 | 41,843 | 58,504 |62,115 194,116 112.975 135.513/ 160,080 | 187.408 '212.807 228 229

Policynokiers’ surplus... , 11.830 Hines 8.520 20.888 ‘25.303 Hebden {37.378 | 45,064 | ener | 65,697 ; 67.720

i A

NA Not eveteble ‘inchudes af property, kabilty, and alied lines; other data ere for pnncpe: ines only, "includes

@mended coverage and shed ines.

Source: insurance information ineuaste, New York, N.Y. insurance Facts, anruat. Date trom A M. Best Company, Otdwack, NJ.

OQ OOOO ee

APPENDIX B

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMIS_.ON

oN @: *% 2121 8TH AVENUE NORTH

1 7: BIRMINGHAM. ALABAMA 35203

OISTRICT OFFICE Our Reference:

Charge No. 042 80 1312

Archie A. Daugherty

Route 1, Box 189-C

Pittsview, Alabama 36871

Charging Party

Georgia Pacific Corporation

Hurtsboro Veneer

Hurtsboro, Alabama 36860

; Respondent

DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission's Procedural

Regulations, I issue, on behalf of the Commission, the following

determination as to the merits of the subject charge.

‘

All jurisdictional requirements have been met.

The Charging Party alleged that Respondent discriminated against

him because of his sex adie) by failing to provide his dependent

wife full medical benefits in accordance with the terms and condi-

tions of his employment. Examination of the evidence indicates

that there is not reasonable cause to believe that this allegation

is true. No determination is made as to any other issue raised

by or which might be construed to have been raised by the subject

charge.

This concludes the Commission's processing of this charge. Should

the Charging Party wish to pursue this matter further, the Party

may do so by filing a private action in Federal District Court

against the Respondent named above within 90 days following receipt

m this letter and by taking the other procedural steps set out in

the attached Notice of Right-to-Sue.

On Behalf of the Commission:

ZLBC

Enclosures: (2)

Notice of Right-to-Sue

Copy of the Charge

District Director

B-1

Section 706(f) (1) and (f) (3) of the Civil Rights’ Act of 1964, as amended, states:

(0) (1) Ut within thirty days alter a charge is filed with the Commission or within thirty davs alter

expiration of any period of reference under subsection (c) or (d), the Commission has been unable to secure

— the respondent a liation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the Commission may bring a

civil action ag any respondent not @ gov gover ! agency, or political sani

in the charge. In the case of a respondent which is a go , gover poe pepe one —

division, if the Commission has been unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement

acceptable to the Commission, the Commission shall take no further action and shall refer the case to the

Attorney General who may bring @ civil action ag such respondent in the appropriate United States

district court. The person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in @ civil action brought

by the Commission or the Attorney General in a case involving a government, governmental agency, or

political subdivision. if a charge filed with the Commission pursuant to subsection (b) is dismissed by the

Commission, or if within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge or the expiration of any

period of reference under subsection (c) or (d), whichever is later, the Commission has not filed @ civil action

under this section or the Attorney General has not fileda civil action in a case involving a government, govern-

mental agency, or political subdivision, or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to

which (he person aggrieved is a party, the Commission, or the Attorney General in a case involving @ govern-

ment, governmental agency, or political subdivision, shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety

days alter the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in-the charge

(A) by the person claiming to be aggrieved, or (B) if such charge was filed by a member of the Commissi-n,

by any person whom the charge alleges was aggrieved by the alleged unlawful employment practice. Upon

application by the complainant and in ‘such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an

attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the action without the payment of fees,

costs, or security. Upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Commission, or the

Attorney General in a case involving a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision, to intervene

in such civil action apon certification thet the case is of general public importance. Upon request, the court

may, in its discretion, stay further proceedings for not more than sixty days pending the termination of State

or local proceedings described in subsections (c) or (d) of this section or further efforts of the Commission

to obtain voluntary compliance.

(f) (3) Each United States district court and each United States court of a place subject to ‘te juris-

diction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this title. Sock ar action may

be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice i= alleged to have

been commitred, in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are main-

tained and administered, or in the judicic/ district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for

the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent ia not found within any such district, such

an action may be brought within the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office. For

purposes of sections 1404 and 1406 of title 28 of the United States Code, the judicial district in which the

respondent has his principal office shall in all cases be considered a district in which the action might have

been brought.

" GPO #36 e768

B-3

tz (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)

Pad -

APPROVED BY GAO | \ > _--4AR_-WUMBERIS) (AGENCY USE ONL)

- | CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION re e£0C 5 >

B--weeses nee QsPORTANT. Ths temo ot wine eines tte | 042801312 (AMENDED

e - : see Privacy Act Statement on reverse before completing it

— 2 =

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

AME aca ea - [HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER linciuce aves code)

ARCHIE A, DAUGHERTY

STREET ADOAESS |

BUF PP Feedea=* me

4 INTY

PITTSVIEW, ALABAMA _36871 RUSSELL

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER. LABOR ORGANIZATION. EMPLOYMENT AGENCY. APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE. STATE OR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME. (if more than one list Deiow)

a TELEPHONE NUMBER (include aves <od0

GEOR £ — wae ese aoe 667-7782

HUDTSGORO VEUEER —UPTSBOPO, AUAEA 6860

STREET ADOAESS CITY. STATE. ANO ZIP COOE

a caitieermeneninr ws iY (Check soproonate posiew

OATE MOST RECENT OR CONTINUING DISCRIMINATION TOOK

‘PLACE (Momtn. gay, end voor) JUNE 10, 1980, AND CONTINUING

THE PARTICULARS ARE

I. The above-named employer refuses to provide health insurance coverage

for pregnancy-related conditions for the spouses of male employees in

the same manner in which health insurance coverase is provided for

spouses of female employees. I have been employed with the employer

since March 7, 1978.‘ I am currently employed as a knife grinder. The

employer employs over 15 employees.

i. On or about June 10, 1980, Mr. Barry Paulk, equal employment opportunity

coordinator of the southern division, stated that the employer would

only pay $175.00 for doctor bills and $220.00 for hospital bills which

I would incur as a result of my spouse's pregnancy.

III. I betieve that I have been discrininated against because of my sex

(wale) inasouch as:

1. The employer's health insurance program covers 80 percent doctor's

expenses (after the deductible) and 100 percent hospital expenses

for spouses of female employees.

2. Mr. Ben Chastain, forner orier Operator, was not paid full health

insurance benefits for doctor and hospital bills which he incurred

as a result of his wife's pregnancy. The employer has told

Mr. James Lloyd, boiler fireman, that he will not be paid full

health insurance benefits for expenses which he will incur as a

result of his wife's pregnancy.

Teac a egency change my scorns or rphore humber and wil Cooperate iy wih hin te Broceaing oy t

Charge in accordance with its procedures. -

| Gectare under penaity of Derrury nat Ine foregowg 1 rue and correct

®=CCNVPeT’'sS Coy

B-4

e- EQUAL —MPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMIS: UN

a a 2121 8TH AVENUE NORTH

. oe, £ ‘ BIRMINGHAM. ALABAMA 35203

Our Reference:

OISTRICT OFFICE Charge No. 042 80 1206

Mr. Barton P. Pollard

Post Office Box 81

Seale, Alabama 36875

Charging Party

Georgia Pacific

Hurtsboro Veneer

Hurtsboro, Alabama 3686C

Respondent

DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission's Procedural

Regulaticns, I issue, on behalf of the Commission, the following

determination as to the merits of the subject charge.

All jurisdictional requirements have been met.

The Charging Party alleged that Respondent discriminated against

him because of his sex (male) by failing to provide his depenagent

wife full medical benefits in accordance with the terms and con-

ditions of his employment. Examination of the evidence indicates

that there is nct reasonable cause to believe that this allegation

is true. No determination is made as to any other issue raisea ty

or which might be construed to have been raised by the subject

charge.

This concludes the Commission's processing of this charge. Should

the Charging Party wish to pursue this matter further, the Party

may do so by filing a private action in Federal District Court

against the Respondent named above within 90 days following receipt

of this letter and by taking the other procedural steps set out in

the attached Notice of Right-to-Sue.

On behalf of the Commission:

2-2? > dl en ato Z

= e OE oN

Date eorge Fran® Joraan

Oistrict Oirector

Enclesures: (2)

Notice of Right-to-Sue

Copy of the Charge

B-5

+ aie, EQUAL UMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSicN

vy Be. 2121 8TH AVENUE NORTH

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203

Our Reference:

DISTRICT OFFICE Charge No. 044-80-0406

Mr. Lester Jackson

Route Two, Box 124 A

Louisville, Mississippi 39339

Charging Party

Georgia Pacific Corporation

Hurtsbero Veneer

Hurtsboro, Alabama 36860

Respondent

DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission's Procedural

Regulations, I-issue, on behalf of the Commission, the following

determination as to the merits of the subject charge.

All jurisdictional requirements have been met.

The Charging Party alleged that Respondent discriminated against

him because of his sex (male) by failing to provide his dependent

wife full medical benefits in accordance with the terms and con-

ditions of his employment. Examination of the evidence indicates

that there is not reasonable cause to believe that this allegation

is true. No determination is made as to any other issue raised

by or which might be construed to have been raised by the subject

charge.

This concludes the Commission's processing of this charge. Should

the Charging Party wish to pursue this matter further, the Party

may do so by filing a private action in Federal District Court against

the Respondent named above within 90 days following receipt of

this letter and by taking the other procedural steps set out in

the attached Notice of Right-to-Sue.

On behalf of the Commission:

ALSLEL

Date

District Director

Enclosures: (2)

Notice of Right-to-Sue

Copy of the Charge

B-6

U7 _ (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) *

(-: MARGE NUMBERS) AGENCY USE OMY)

OD te0c

APPROVED BY GAO |

8—180541 (ROS10)

Expires 1-31-81

coniae OF DISCRIMINATION

IMPORTANT This torm is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974.

see Privacy Act Statement on reverse before completing it 044-800-406

: ‘ GS/bdg

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

re oe er a aca as oes

__Lester Jackson

STREET AOORESS

Roya Re Rox 124A 601-773-3868

39339

—__Louisville, MS

NAMEO |S THE EMPLOYER. LABOP ORGANIZATION. EMPLOYMENT AGENCY. APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE. STATE OR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WhO OISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME. (if more than one list below)

nant naan i

601-773-9211

areaer ” —GiFY STATE. ano Bi CODE

STREET AOORESS City STATE. AND ZIP CODE

CAUSE OF OISTRIMINATION BASED ON MY [Check approonate box les)

OATE MOST RECENT OR CONTINUING DISCRIMINATION TOOK

PLACE (Morin dey. and veer) °

THE PARTICULARS ARE

I. I was denied equitable medical expense coverage for the pregnancy

related conditions of my dependent wife on approximately Deceaber

15, 1979.

Il. I was told by Cynthia Bethany and Shirley Weaver, who handles

insurance claims for the company, that ay health insurance would

not pay more than $100 for sy wife's pregnancy because she was

not an employee.

III. I beliewe that I was discriminated against because of ay sex, male,

because:

1. The company's insurance provides for dependent coverage of

employees spouses. My wife is listedi'my dependent.

2. The company’s insurance pay a flat $100 for pregnancy related

medical conditions for the wife of male employees. I received

only $100 for ay wife's pregnancy related condition.

3. The company’s insurance pays a different level of coverage

for other medical conditions not related to pregnancy for

the spouses of female employees.

"sitib c. chuice

bee

rd yen. ony bf) my number and i will cooperate fully with it in the processing of my

charge in accordance wi as peewee tO ey 7 sy

| Geciare wider peneity of Denury Inat Ina foragowng 16 1"Ue aNd Corre

nae ry pe

“edhe ae he

- to Aon ae el

OaTE - ~ XK Scuancina Panty . ,

EEOC FORM SA MAR 79 PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF ALL EEOC FORM S'S ARE O8SOLE MUST NOT BE USEO

PLODANKE "Ss CANDY

B-7

esuay’ SPLOYVVENT GC. * CRTUNITV CS: c=

2121 6TH AVE*VE *.U LH

: L.A“INGHAM. ALABAMA 25503

Gur reference:

2 ofRICT OFFICE

Charce No. 042 80 1204

Jemes E. Lloyd

Fost Office Box 174

Pittview, Alabama 3€871

Charging Party

Georgia Pacific Corporation

4“Yurtsboro Veneer

kurtsboro, Alabama =6€&60

Respondent

OETERMINATICN

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission's Procedural

Regulations, I issue on behalf crf the Commission, the following

determination as to the merits of the subject charge.

Ail jurisdictional requirements have been met.

The Charging Party alleged that Respondent discriminated against

him because of his sex (male) in respect to medical bem ;

=xamination of the evidence indicates that there is not reasonable

ause to lieve that this allegation is true. ‘No_determination J

5 as to any other issue raised by or which might be construed

to have been raised by the sutject charge.

This concludes the Commission's processing of this charge. Should

the Charging Party wish to pursue this matter further, the Party

may do so by filing a private action in Federal District Court

against the Respondent named above within 90 days following receipt

of this letter and by taking the other procedural steps set out in

the enclosed Notice of Right-to-Sue.

On behalf of the Commissicn:

4PR 30 1981 A

Date // Geer e Frank Jorcan

Dis rict Director

ee,

Enclosures: (2)

Notice of Right-to-Sue

Copy of the Charge

B-8

2 ® :

cies ‘ner OST LATION papell Sage

i) ’ _ aad A OS SecPO rors ; oy

ee oh * Sialatet Lee oH le oRy tt. Mat, Act oF 1676,

et - . e Ne ow

s ye PFevaty Ae2 f°.°. > Pomme Od “oe EIT Cte at

Equal Cr pic, meni Opponunity Conm:<sion

Tose i ead moe Like We oe Le ry)

: “Ss _LLoyD

“ay ots

WUTE 1, 30X 133 (20 655.2230

arate rey cP CORR cour

LeTV LEW, Abs ALABANA 36871 RUSSELL

**€O 1S THE Eb. ‘PLOVER LABOR ORGANIZATION, ELPLOYIMENT AGE!:CY, APPRENTICE ship COMMTICE St "AY E OR

DIAL GOVERMENT AGENCY \Wvi4O OISCAIIMINATED AGAINST IME (If more th than one list bclow).

ve ee rece oe i, errr sry

‘EOR ACIFIC | 0 7-778

pep P (2 5) 667-7752

-JRTSBORO VENEER ° HURT Dal

oa “ttn —

TT SEY.) ae STATE ano t

[ OF DiSEMi NATION BASED ON AV (Check approprale Bon lee))

a “ dl '

Se titan con, Onde NORMIMANONTOCK UNE 10, 1980, AND CONTINUING

“EPEAT ARS AR

I. The above-named em

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.