By Mitchel Wilson
I
n Sadie v. City of Cleveland, 118 FEP Cases 1104 (6th Cir. 2013), the appellate court upheld the lower court for dismissing the suit of a group of former Cleveland police officers who were not retained after age 65. Their suit alleged that the City’s mandatory retirement program violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), an Ohio discrimination statute, and equal protection of the 14th Amendment.
A codified Cleveland Ordinance that has been in effect since 1960 requires police officers and firefighters who reach the age of sixty-five to retire. For almost the entire duration of the ordinance, the city has permitted both departments to retain officers and firefighters past the age of 65 where the employee passed and independent medical examination.
Before 2010, the department had never denied a qualifying request; however, the City of Cleveland faced a $60-million budget deficit following the collapse of 2008-09. The department laid off sixty-seven patrol officers and demoted twenty-eight promoted officers. Faced with laying off even more young, “vibrant” and less expensive officers, the Chief decided to not permit the retired officers to seek employment extensions beyond the ordinance.
Because the Ohio State age-discrimination statute mirrors the ADEA, the court combined the analysis and concluded that the mandatory retirement ordinance is lawful and that the former officers have no claim. The ADEA makes it unlawful to discharge employees because of their age; however, the ADEA allows state and local governments to discharge firefighters and law enforcement officers over the age of fifty-five pursuant to a retirement plan. The forced retirement cannot be pre-textual or subterfuge, meaning that the exception must be used in “good faith.”
Although the trial court incorrectly placed the burden of showing “subterfuge” on the former officers, this court concluded that the City still legitimately showed its purpose in enforcing the ordinance was to permissibly address budget problems and not another reason:
The retirees argue that the City enforced its mandatory-retirement ordinance because certain City officials expressed a preference for younger officers. Essentially, the retirees argue that the City was not concerned with the efficiency of the Police Department, but that it forced the retirees into retirement due to discriminatory animus toward older police officers. The problem with the retirees’ argument is that it ignores the fact that the Act explicitly allows for the termination of police officers on the basis of age. The First, Second, and Seventh Circuits have all rejected an interpretation of “subterfuge” that would nullify the exemption for the mandatory retirement of police and fire officers.
Under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, state governments may make law that treat persons differently based on their age if the government has a legitimate aim and the law is rationally related to that end. This is a low standard and the
court will uphold a law “unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [the court] can only conclude that the [government’s] actions were irrational.”
The former officers argued that because the fire department granted extensions to employees the police department’s decision not to violate the 14th Amendment. However, the availability of alternative methods to reach a goal will not defeat a statute, and the court sees no reason why the police department should be bound by the actions of the fire department.
Faced with budget concerns, the Police Department laid off sixty-seven patrol officers and demoted twenty-eight promoted police officers. As a result of that decision, Chief McGrath decided that, when faced with the choice of bringing back and re-promoting those officers or extending the service of its officers over sixty-five, he would bring back the most-needed officers in order to help maintain the vitality of the department. Chief McGrath’s decision was rationally related to the legitimate purpose of addressing the Department’s budget concerns.
