NCJ Number
101294
Journal
Journal of Police Science and Administration Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: (March 1986) Pages: 6-11
Date Published
1986
Length
6 pages
Annotation
The U.S. Supreme Court will not accept mandatory retirement ages for police officers unless enough evidence exists to convince a trial court that all or substantially all officers cannot perform their duties safely and efficiently beyond that age.
Abstract
The passage of the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and its extension to State and local employees in 1967 led to the use of bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) as the legal test of mandatory retirement ages. The law presumes that mandatory retirement by age is unconstitutional. The level of proof that courts have required has made this presumption difficult to rebut. Law enforcement agencies have been involved in many court cases involving mandatory retirement, with conflicting results. Courts accepted mandatory retirement at age 60 in Missouri and Pennsylvania, but rejected a mandatory retirement age of 55 for Wisconsin deputy sheriffs. In EEOC v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court required that a State provide factual evidence that age is a BFOQ for a job if it is to enforce a mandatory retirement age. Congress has abolished mandatory retirement ages for all but certain occupations. However, the Supreme Court has refused to accept the age requirements for Federal law enforcement officers as some sort of national standard. Congressional attempts to establish lower limits to retirement ages would produce much political opposition. The American Association of Retired Persons actively supports pending legislation that would eliminate age limits for law enforcement personnel. Removing this limit will result in even more lawsuits. 41 reference notes.