Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05221/USCOURTS-caDC-96-05221-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed May 2, 1997

No. 96-5221

KENNETH STRAWBERRY,

APPELLANT

v.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 95cv01946)

-

ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

-

Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney, R. Craig 

Lawrence and Darya Geetter, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the motion for summary affirmance for appellee.

USCA Case #96-5221 Document #269818 Filed: 05/02/1997 Page 1 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Barbara B. Hutchinson was on the response to the motion 

for summary affirmance for appellant.

Before: WALD, WILLIAMS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: Kenneth Strawberry appeals an order granting summary judgment for the Secretary of State in this age 

discrimination dispute. Strawberry asserts that the Secretary violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 

("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., by "forcing" him to retire 

at age 65. Because Strawberry elected to participate in a 

retirement system with a statutorily-mandated retirement 

age of 65 and because the Secretary's compliance with the 

statute does not violate the ADEA, we grant the Secretary's 

motion for summary affirmance.

I. BACKGROUND

In February 1984, Strawberry was mandatorily converted 

from a Foreign Service Reserve position to a civil service 

position because he was not available for worldwide assignment. Under 22 U.S.C. § 4156(b), Strawberry had the option 

of remaining in the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System ("FSRDS") or transferring to the Civil Service 

Retirement and Disability System ("CSRS"). He chose to 

remain in the FSRDS, which provides a more generous 

annuity and allows earlier voluntary retirement, see id.

§§ 4046, 4051, but has a mandatory retirement age of 65, see 

id. § 4052.

After Congress established the Foreign Service Pension 

System ("FSPS") in 1986, Strawberry had a choice between 

remaining in the FSRDS or transferring to the FSPS. The 

FSPS offers a slightly smaller annuity, but provides Social 

Security coverage and allows participation in the Thrift Savings Plan. In October 1987, Strawberry transferred to the 

FSPS, which incorporates the FSRDS's mandatory retirement provision. See id. § 4071d(a)(1).

Strawberry was due to retire on July 31, 1995, the last day 

of the month in which he turned 65. However, he sought a 

USCA Case #96-5221 Document #269818 Filed: 05/02/1997 Page 2 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1The Secretary moved to strike the request for damages and a 

jury trial, arguing that 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (the authority cited by 

Strawberry) does not apply to ADEA claims. The district court did 

not rule on the motion, and Strawberry does not raise the matter on 

appeal. 

waiver of mandatory retirement under § 4052(b), which allows the Secretary to retain an employee on active service if 

she determines it to be in the public interest. The Secretary 

denied the waiver request, and Strawberry retired as scheduled on July 31, 1995.

In October 1995, Strawberry filed suit in district court 

alleging that the Secretary had violated the ADEA by forcing 

him to retire at 65. Strawberry sought reinstatement, backpay, damages, and a jury trial.1 The district court granted 

the Secretary's motion for summary judgment in June 1996. 

The court noted that the Foreign Service Act of 1980 maintained the mandatory retirement provision of the Foreign 

Service Act of 1946 but raised the mandatory retirement age 

from 60 to 65, and that the Federal Employees' Retirement 

System Act of 1986 made the mandatory retirement age 

applicable to the FSPS. The court then held:

Longstanding principles of statutory interpretation 

hold that, where there is no clear intention otherwise, a 

specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a 

general one. This is particularly so when the specific 

statute is enacted at the same time as, or after, a more 

general provision. The enactments of 1980 and 1986, 

each of which post-date[s] the ADEA and specifically 

provide[s] for the mandatory retirement of Foreign Service employees, must be given full force and effect. The 

ADEA's general prohibition of age discrimination cannot 

be read to prevent the implementation of the mandatory 

retirement provisions of the Foreign Service Act.

6/4/96 Memorandum at 3 (citations omitted). This appeal 

followed.

II. ANALYSIS

Strawberry argues that the mandatory retirement age of 

65 applies only to those in the Foreign Service, not to those 

USCA Case #96-5221 Document #269818 Filed: 05/02/1997 Page 3 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

who were converted to civil service positions. He first asserts that "§ 4052 provides that "members of the Foreign 

Service' shall be retired at age sixty-five." Response to 

Motion for Summary Affirmance at 2. He next asserts that 

the legislative history of § 4052 shows that Congress intended that the mandatory retirement age apply to members of 

the Foreign Service serving in overseas posts, and that 

neither the Foreign Service Act of 1980 nor the Federal 

Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 required that any 

other employees retire at age 65. Indeed, he contends that 

the FSPS "specifically removed employees such as Mr. 

Strawberry from the [FSRDS] which required mandatory 

retirement at age sixty-five." Response to Motion for Summary Affirmance at 3. Strawberry adds that his forced 

retirement was contrary to the requirement that participants 

in the FSPS be treated like participants in the Federal 

Employees' Retirement System ("FERS"). This argument 

appears to be based on the fact that FERS does not include 

the mandatory retirement age contained in the FSRDS and 

FSPS. Finally, he argues that a mandatory retirement age 

of 65 renders the FSPS "superfluous," although the basis for 

this argument is not entirely clear. See Response to Motion 

for Summary Affirmance at 4-5.

Strawberry's arguments are meritless. Section 4052(a) 

does not state that "members of the Foreign Service" shall be 

retired at age 65, as Strawberry asserts. Rather, it provides 

that, with an exception not relevant here, "any participant [in 

the FSRDS] shall be retired from the Service" at age 65. 

While participation in the FSRDS was originally generally 

limited to those in the Foreign Service, see 22 U.S.C. § 4043, 

the Foreign Service Act of 1980 allowed those who converted 

to civil service positions to "elect in writing to continue to 

participate in the [FSRDS] instead of the [CSRS] so long as 

[they are] employed in an agency which is authorized to 

utilize the Foreign Service personnel system." Id.

§ 4156(b)(1).

Strawberry does not identify any part of the Act or any 

other statutory provision affirmatively exempting from the 

FSRDS's mandatory retirement provision those who converted to civil service positions but elected to remain in the 

USCA Case #96-5221 Document #269818 Filed: 05/02/1997 Page 4 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2Strawberry likewise did not argue below that applying the 

mandatory retirement age renders the FSPS superfluous. The 

basis for this argument is unclear and, to the extent that the 

argument differs from Strawberry's FERS-based argument, we 

need not address it in light of his failure to raise it below. 

FSRDS. Rather, he seems to suggest that these employees 

are not subject to the mandatory retirement provision because § 4052(a) refers only to the Foreign Service, not to the 

civil service. However, § 4052(a) naturally refers only to 

retirement from the Foreign Service, since it is part of the 

Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System. (Section 

4051, the voluntary retirement provision, likewise refers only 

to retirement "from the Service.") We cannot conclude that, 

in allowing Strawberry and others to participate in the 

FSRDS although they no longer held Foreign Service positions, Congress intended to exempt them from the burdens 

imposed on other FSRDS participants while affording them 

the same benefits. Instead, we hold that Strawberry and 

others who elected to continue their participation in the 

FSRDS remained subject to the terms of the FSRDS, including the mandatory retirement provision.

Strawberry subsequently transferred from the FSRDS to 

the FSPS, established under the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986. However, the Act provides that 

"[a]ny participant [in the FSPS] may be retired under the 

conditions specified in section 4051 of this title and shall be 

retired under the conditions specified in sections 4052 and 

4053 of this title and receive benefits under this part." Id.

§ 4071d(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, those who elected to 

participate in the FSPS remain subject to § 4052's mandatory 

retirement age.

Because Strawberry did not raise the argument below, we 

need not address his contention that applying the mandatory 

retirement age to FSPS participants is inconsistent with the 

requirement that FSPS participants be treated like FERS 

participants. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Air Florida, 

Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 1984).2 However, we note 

that § 4071(b) states that,

USCA Case #96-5221 Document #269818 Filed: 05/02/1997 Page 5 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided in this part or 

any other provision of law, the provisions of chapter 84 

of Title 5 shall apply to all participants in the [FSPS] and 

such participants shall be treated in all respects similar 

to persons whose participation in the [FERS] provided in 

that chapter is required (emphasis added).

As noted above, § 4071d(a)(1) specifically provides that FSPS 

participants shall be retired under the conditions stated in 

§ 4052. Thus, applying the mandatory retirement age to 

FSPS participants is not precluded under § 4071(b), and any 

resulting difference in the treatment of FSPS and FERS 

participants is required by the Act itself.

Finally, the district court correctly held that the mandatory 

retirement provisions of the 1980 and 1986 Acts do not run 

afoul of the ADEA. As the district court noted, Congress 

maintained but increased the mandatory retirement age in 

1980 and applied the mandatory retirement age to FSPS 

participants in 1986. Both actions occurred after the ADEA 

was made applicable to federal employees. It is wellestablished that "[w]here there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a 

general one...." Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550 

(1974). Thus, the district court correctly held that the 

ADEA's general prohibition of age discrimination does not 

prohibit enforcement of the mandatory retirement provisions. 

We therefore grant the Secretary's motion for summary 

affirmance.

So ordered.

USCA Case #96-5221 Document #269818 Filed: 05/02/1997 Page 6 of 6