Whether the Fourth Circuit erroneously held that a retroactive award of monetary relief is mandatory under the ADEA in this pension case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether the Fourth Circuit erroneously held that a retroactive award of monetary relief is mandatory under the ADEA in this pension case, A. because the Fourth Circuit’s holding is in conflict with this Court’s instructions in a trilogy of pension cases not to award retroactive monetary relief against pension plans; B. because this Court has previously held that the rules governing pension plans “should not be applied retroactively unless the legislature has plainly commanded that result” and there is no such legislative command in the ADEA; C. because any award of retroactive monetary relief in this case involves the complex review of and individualized actuarial calculations for a class of approximately 12,000 pension beneficiaries, not the relatively simple calculation of unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation contemplated by the enforcement provision of the FLSA; D. because the ADEA’s enforcement provision provides that the district court had “jurisdiction to grant such legal and equitable relief as may be appropriate;” E. because the broad grant of discretionary authority in 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) has been repeatedly confirmed by the Circuit Courts of Appeal; and F. because no other federal court has interpreted the enforcement provision of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as requiring that retroactive monetary relief be awarded for ADEA violations?