The Constitutionality of Mandatory Retirement for Nonphysical Government Employment
Introduction
The Supreme Court remains unresponsive to claims of discrimination based on age, despite its rejection of classifications based on race or gender. The Court’s reluctance to grapple with age discrimination is apparent in its treatment of cases brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as in the analytical framework it has used to judge age discrimination suits brought under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Recently, the Court denied petitions for certiorari for three equal protection cases from two different Circuit Courts of Appeal: Gault v. Garrisons, Johnson v. Lefkowitz, and Palmer v. Ticcione. These cases offered an excellent opportunity for the Supreme Court to limit the effects of its much-criticized 1976 decision in Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, and to recognize that age discrimination, particularly in the form of mandatory retirement laws, is no more constitutionally valid than is racial or sexual discrimination. Granting certiorari also would have allowed the Court to clarify its decision in Vance v. Bradley and its summary affirmance of Slate v. Noll. Though neither Bradley nor Slate considered the validity of mandatory retirement statutes generally, the decisions indicate that the Court is even less sympathetic towards those forced to retire than the Murgia opinion indicated.
Suggested Reading
#SayHerName: Racial Profiling and Police Violence Against Black Women
Andrea J. Ritchie{{Andrea J. Ritchie is a civil rights attorney who has led groundbreaking research, litigation, and advocacy efforts to challenge profiling, policing, and physical and sexual violence by law enforcement against women, girls and LGBTQ people of color for
Don't Let Trump-- or Biden-- Distract from the Real Victims of the Espionage Act
During the First World War, the Espionage Act was overwhelmingly used for the prosecution of dissidents, the Black press, radical labor, and socialists.
Miller and Young Adults: Fighting for Inclusion
We have a lot of fighting left to do, both in court and in the legislature, and my work will continue on this issue and many others.
Prohibiting Young Adult Life Without Parole: Examining Diminished Capacity and Diminished Culpability
As with juveniles, young adults (18-24) experience a diminished capacity for cognitive processing because the PFC and EFs continue to develop into the mid-20’s. This diminished capacity of young adults must be taken into consideration when sentencing people in this age