In the Case of Hazen Paper Co

In the case of Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, the Supreme Court said it was permissible for an employer to terminate an employee in order to prevent the employee from vesting in the company pension plan because

A) age and years of service are analytically distinct (i.e., the employer's action was based on plaintiff's eligibility to receive a pension and not his age) .
B) Supreme Court justices are appointed for life so they don't have to worry about receiving a pension.
C) plaintiff had worked for the company for less than ten years.
D) an older worker is always more likely to vest in a pension than a younger worker.