Age discrimination claims are increasing. There are probably several reasons for this trend. As we live longer, many of us are working longer.

Also, as many businesses downsize, it appears that the older workers (in the protected class of 40 years and older) are often the first to be let go. It also seems like a week doesn't go by without The Times running a story on retirees' health benefits. One issue facing employers is the financial need to coordinate retiree health benefits with Medicare coverage.

Several years ago, a federal court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) required employers to offer Medicare-eligible retirees the same benefits, or benefits which cost the same, as health benefits provided to retirees who had not yet reached age 65.

Employers and labor unions expressed immediate concern with the ruling. They feared that absent the cost saving benefits of being able to offer less -- or no -- health benefits to Medicare-eligible employees would force them to reduce or eliminate health benefits for everyone. In other words, if no benefits were offered, no one could maintain a claim of age discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a three-part rule that in effect reverses this decision. First, employers can choose to offer health benefits to retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare coverage.

The second part of the rule provides that health benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees can be different (expected to be less) than those benefits offered to retirees who do not qualify for Medicare coverage.

Finally, the rule provides that plan sponsors can reduce or eliminate medical benefits to spouses or dependents of retired employees when the spouse or dependent becomes Medicare-eligible, even if the retirees' benefits are not changed.

The new rule has been upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court has been asked to review the matter. If it chooses not to, the rule will stand that the health care benefits for retirees can be coordinated with Medicare coverage.

Opinions expressed solely are those of the writer. James Jorgensen practices law at Hoeppner Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso.