Document: 472 U.S. 353 105 S.Ct. 2717 86 L.Ed.2d 286 Robert W. JOHNSON, et al., Petitioners,v.MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE al. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. MAYOR Nos. 84-518, 84-710. Argued April 22, 1985. Decided June 17, Syllabus The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis age against employees who are between ages 40 and 70 by, inter alia, discharging them or requiring to retire involuntarily, except when is shown be "a bona fide occupational qualification [BFOQ] reasonably necessary normal operation particular business." When ADEA was amended 1974 1978 extend it federal eliminate substantially all limits employment, provision civil service statute, 5 U.S.C. § 8335(b), which requires most firefighters at 55, left untouched. Petitioners, employed by city Baltimore, brought an action Federal District Court, challenging, ground that they violated ADEA, city's code provisions establish for a mandatory retirement lower than 70. defended BFOQ position firefighters. After trial, holding had failed produce sufficient evidence make out this defense, invalidated challenged provisions. Court Appeals reversed. Relying EEOC Wyoming, 460 226, 103 1054, 75 18, observed tests State's discretion impose "against reasonable standard," held 8335(b) furnished such standard, that, since Congress selected 55 as firefighters, matter law same constitutes state local well, therefore not required any factual showing need age. Held: Title does not, law, nonfederal within meaning ADEA. Pp. 360-371. (a) "reasonable standard" referred supra, standard supplied itself, i.e., whether limit BFOQ. Nothing decision Wyoming warrants conclusion rule, found its terms applicable only employees, necessarily authorizes government maintain law. mere fact some cease work provide absolute defense challenging 360-362. (b) Neither language nor legislative history indicates based congressional determination Instead, represents nothing more must retire, general matter, 55. makes clear certain including early actual qualifications covered but rather, significant part, attempt image youthful force making attractive financially rewarding. Accordingly, would error court, faced with challenge under give weight 8335(b). 362-370. 731 F.2d 209 (CA 4 1984), reversed remanded. Sol. Gen. Rex E. Lee, Washington, D.C., petitioners both cases. L. William Gawlik, Md., respondents Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 issue statute generally establishes, (BFOQ) 1967, 81 Stat. 602, amended, 29 621 seq. (ADEA Act). 2 * enacted "to promote employment older persons their ability rather age; prohibit arbitrary discrimination employment; [and] help workers find ways meeting problems arising impact employment." 621(b). To end, today virtually applicants example, involuntarily. §§ 623(a), 631(a). contains one exception prohibition: business," 623(f)(1), employee may terminated his before reaching 70.1 3 Since enacting has several times. originally did apply Government, States political subdivisions, fewer 25 extended coverage Federal, State, Governments, least 20 workers. 630(b), 633a.2 Also, while initially up 65, raised maximum state, local, private eliminated cap entirely Amendments 1978, 3(a), 92 189, 631(b) (hereinafter Amendments). untouched specific occupations, air traffic controllers, enforcement officers, well Foreign Service Central Intelligence Agency. Among were unaffected officers if have years qualify pension agency public interest continue employment.3 As result, despite At here effect ADEA's application Six Maryland Baltimore's municipal police personnel They claimed these violate Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subsequently intervened support six plaintiffs. 6 Until 1962, Baltimore Employees Retirement System (ERS), provided App. 4. In established Fire Police Employee (FPERS), firefighting below rank lieutenant See FPERS, City Code, Art. 34(a)1-4 (1983); 3. Lieutenants other higher ranking until 65. Ibid. FPERS implemented special made hired given option remaining ERS transferring grandfather provision. Firefighters 1962 chose remain even today. 515 F.Supp. 1287, 1297, n. 10 (Md.1981). newer 60 or, limited circumstances, plaintiffs include five clause subject 60, firefighter after 7 city4 asserted affirmative permissible 6-day bench each side presented expert nonexpert testimony validity defense.5 court considered condition plaintiff Department, noting "historically firemen always worked past [age 60] seventy," F.Supp., 1297. It then applied two-pronged test developed Fifth Circuit Usery Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 531 224 (1976), adopted Fourth Circuit.6 trial concluded neither "there [it] believe sixty sixty-five, unable perform job safely efficiently," 1296, "it impossible impractical deal sixty-five individualized basis." struck down plan 8 A divided panel (1984). majority take Court's findings prove entitled reach conclusion, appellate relied 18 (1983), we upheld constitutionality Congress' extension governments. standard." Id., 240, S.Ct., 1062. undertook "search 'reasonable standard' " BFOQ; 3, supra. because well. Therefore, concluded, age.7 9 Because case presents serious questions about administration granted certiorari review Appeals. 469 1156, 901, 83 917 (1985). We now reverse. B arose lawsuit filed game warden He State various officials claiming requirement Tenth Amendment insofar regulated Wyoming's relationship wardens dismissed suit. rejecting argument, explained unduly intrude into exercise governmental functions require retain unfit determinations fitness. Moreover, noted light might free obligation showings: 11 "Perhaps important, appellees do precisely what doing now, can demonstrate 'bona qualification' warden. . Thus, achieve goals way thinks best being overridden entirely, merely tested U.S., 1062 (emphasis original). 12 remanded opportunity wardens. 13 case, interpreted our use term quoted passage mean question resolved simply reference establishing class employees. seized Then, without considering intent underlying provision, 14 however, itself—that is, By phrase, intended reaffirm permits employer long requisite Government imposed own automatically dispositive appropriate examining rule far beyond scope. officers. 15 focus instead centered attention United Code. remiss, indisputable permit deviations mandate particularized, showing, see H.R.Rep. No. 805, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., (1967); Legislative History 80; S.Rep. 723, 111, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2213,8 circumvent citation unrelated statutory mentioned II 16 city, supported amici, argues affirmance nonetheless. asserts first just establishes factors properly go Western Air Lines, Inc. Criswell, 400, 2743, 321 Second, asserts, finding occupation respect occupation. consider contentions turn. A. 17 resolve age-55 reflects urges, analysis different mandated standard. On question, silent. Section evince cover scope Nor passed later, cross-reference express desire exempt full Act's reach.9 words, indicated anything BFOQs employment. This demonstrates acted idiosyncratic service. introduced 1947 legislation permitting investigatory Bureau Investigation 50 enhanced annuity. July 11, 1947, ch. 219, 61 307. 1948 program anyone whose duties primarily investigation, apprehension, detention suspected convicted criminal violations, 2, 1948, 807, 62 1221. 1972, voluntary further Aug. 14, Pub.L. 92-382, 539. 19 early. designed part "added stimulus morale [t]o stabilize career [and to] act incentive investigative [FBI] reached." 76, 80th 1-2 (1947). addition, Attorney General Tom C. Clark explained, Department sought FBI "as 'young man's service.' added "men 60's 70's, forced service, rigors arduous demanded agents others, [should be] carry lack adequate fit needs service." 2. 1974, completed scheme, goal amendment "relatively young, vigorous, effective workforces." 93-463, (1973). also replace existing having adverse quality "most those fifties alert aggressive desirable jobs outside Government," id., 3; contrast, scheme enable management "retire, stigma, suffers loss proficiency." Certain Hazardous Duty Personnel: Hearing H.R. 6078 9281 Subcommittee Compensation Benefits Senate Committee Post Office Civil Service, 93d 2d 134 (1974) (testimony Rep. Brasco, sponsor House bill). 21 undoubtedly took steps through However, offers indication why wanted "young service," thought proper cutoff age, believed could meet demands occupations. Indeed, Congressmen opposed bill voiced concern singling group preferential treatment annuities retirement, acknowledge exigencies willingness accord 20. allowance yet served jobs, 6, along exceptions casts doubt argument either jeopardized 22 absence raises possibility "an example sort stereotyping primary targets reforms ADEA," Brief Petitioner 84-710, 38, surely belies contention qualifications. Without knowing support, balancing competing policy concerns, stereotypical assumptions, no decipher consistent policies ADEA.10 23 conclusively represent resulted met standards agreement Committees jurisdiction over programs Instead delaying studied proposed decided preserve status quo program, pending study. purpose definitively rules approved 24 reported 1977, removed limitations "notwithstanding relating requirements. ." 5383, 95th (1977); 396. Representative Nix, Chairman Committee, thereafter expressed "broad language" repeal Committee. 123 Cong.Rec. 29003-29004 (1977) (letter Perkins, Education Labor); 400-401. suggested colleagues' expedite consideration accommodated eliminating proposal approval, ibid., accordingly, Spellman offered amendment, behalf 29002 (statement Hawkins); 399. so doing, stated: "I hasten point indicate opposition perse [sic ] elimination 26 "However, liberalized programs, committee believes should repealed individual been reexamined." 30556 415. 27 Similarly, Pepper, Amendments, clear: 28 "For record, Mr. Chairman, I appear obvious: That House, debating passing judgment whatever desirability retaining statutes affected retirement. judgment, am sure, will rendered committees involved bring subsequent floor." And again, Hawkins, Opportunities Labor, stated "[t]he sole afford statutes." were, retained enacted. 95-256, 5(c), 191; H.R.Conf.Rep. 95-950, pp. 10-11 (1978); 521-522, 504.11 30 sum, almost four decades time arbitrarily designated era concerned pervasive elderly eventually gave rise Thereafter, although questioning continued good sense, sake expediency alone. quite possible conclusive led reason retention undercuts determined 31 grounded qualifications, presume intend. myriad purposes decisions affecting body's uncontested authority requirements regulatory statutes, BFOQs.12 conclude articulate presence Code relevant weight, much less 32 Were there considerations Act, situation differ. Of course, expressly dispositive. But exemption nevertheless deciding district engaged reviewing employer's defense. considered, conclusions drawn therefrom, admissible judicial proceedings determine existence extent probative would, vary depending congruity occupations issue. tasks circumstances order relevant, preclude kind wholesale reliance suggests. 362-363. supports BFOQ, decline speculate manner affect III 33 accordingly reverse Appeals' provides action. remand opinion. 34 ordered. separate section treated differently case. 633a (extending antidiscrimination providing remedy violations); 631 (establishing whom cap). Cf. Vance Bradley, 440 93, 99 939, 59 171 (1979) (lower system equal protection). Special Aging, Improving Law, 17-18 (Comm.Print 1973); EEOC, 215, 231, 234-235 (1981) History). minor exemptions here. See, e.g., 630(f), 631(c)(1). additionally empowers 633a(b), finds "necessary interest." 628. 1980, examined fixing warranted. assessments fitness feasible alone poor indicator 5-23. provides: "A officer otherwise eligible immediate 8336(c) title shall separated last day month he becomes completes head agency, requires, automatic separation subsection employing office notify writing date days advance thereof. Action effective, consent employee, 60-day notice expires." defendants Mayor Council members Board Trustees Baltimore. refer collectively "city." Plaintiffs argue 65 essentially lieutenants. prior violates show (1) invokes 'is essence business' operating efficient fire department (2) cause, believing efficiently involved, basis.' 1295 (quoting Arritt Grisell, 567 1267, 1271 (CA4 1977)). Chief Judge Winter dissented. rejected panel's constituted excuse proving facts 623(f)(1). Concluding proof clearly erroneous, affirmed courts fashioned focus, first, limit, second, belief above qualified testing highly impractical. elaborated precise applied. 412-417, 2751-2753, Recently, Representatives. S. 698, 99th Sess. (introduced March 20, 1985); 1435, 1985). Congress, treat relations directly supervise, employers, see, 3306(c)(6) (unemployment compensation employees); 152(2) (exempting labor legislation); indeed done elsewhere While exempted applies protective imposes employers. 631(a), (federal cannot similarly situated 70). leading relevance inquiry absent direction point. infra. derives recognition already make, congressionally gathered useful factfinding persuasive. Contrary suggestion Appeals, 209, 212-213 way. Spellman's hearings heard Policies Law Enforcement Officers Firefighters: Hearings (1977). 7945 report Accounting Office, "[r]etirement disregard difference physical abilities productive capacity costly wasteful." Report Comptroller States: Policy Firefighter Personnel Needs Reevaluation change rules. More recently, again confronted suggesting unnecessary wasteful. Report, published Select states justify hiring arguments safety job-related performance." Myths Realities Limits Firefighting Personnel, 98th IV 1984). Legislation currently 1710, 25, relying kind. reveals qualification, remained completely voluntary. mandatory. pointed instituted "more decade likewise." Answer Appellant Petition Rehearing Suggestion en Banc 81-1965 (CA4), 9-10.

Category: 1