Petitioners also emph size that a member of staff taking part in the Arizona plan can elect to get a lump-sum payment upon your retirement and then "purchase the largest advantages which their accumulated efforts could command in the great outdoors market. " The fact that the lump-sum option allows it has no bearing, but, on whether petitioners have actually discriminated as a result of intercourse in providing an annuity substitute for its employees. It is no defense to discrimination in the provision of a fringe benefit that another fringe benefit is provided on a nondiscriminatory basis as we have pointed out above, ante, at note 10.
Although petitioners contended in the Court of Appeals that their conduct had been exempted through the reach of Title VII by the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 33, as amended, 15 U.S.C.