E.E.O.C. v. Com. of Pa., s. 84-5742
| Decision Date | 19 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 84-5742,84-5743,84-5808 and 84-5879,s. 84-5742 |
| Citation | 768 F.2d 514 |
| Parties | 39 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 591, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,437 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; and Lieutenant Otto J. Binker v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; Pennsylvania State Police; and Daniel F. Dunn, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. Appeal of Otto J. BINKER, Appellant in 84-5742. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; and Lieutenant Otto J. Binker v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; Pennsylvania State Police; and Daniel F. Dunn, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. Appeal of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Appellant in 84-5743. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION; and Lieutenant Otto J. Binker v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; Pennsylvania State Police; and Daniel F. Dunn, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. Appeal of COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; Pennsylvania State Police; and Daniel F. Dunn, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, Appellants in 84-5808. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and Lieutenant Otto J. Binker v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Pennsylvania State Police, James M. Petti, James F. Kessler, James J. Carey, Ronald C. Rupert, George R. Painter, John J. Mitchell, Carl J. Abernathy, Gerard M. Gallagher, Thomas R. Scales, IV, Joseph L. Datesman, John T. Scoble, Robert Gregorich, Ronald Colyer, William S. Keighley, Thomas Bickta, Richard G. Barclay, John Kochis, William R. Benton, Arthur L. Hershey, John Gerrity, Edward Kroll, Andy Mollura, Howard Decker, Evan Jones, Ronald Craig, Thomas Lynn, John J. Carroll, Jr., Robert P. Hague, James H. Jefferies, Robert Brobson and Ronald Raber, Applicants for intervention, Appellants in 84-5879. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John L. Heaton (argued), Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kaufmann, Harrisburg, Pa., for Otto J. Binker.
Joseph S. Rengert (argued), Asst. Counsel, Harrisburg, Pa., for Com. of Pa., Pa. State Police, Daniel F. Dunn.
Johnny J. Butler (argued), Gen. Counsel (Acting), Susan Buckingham Reilly, Peggy R. Mastroianni, E.E.O.C., Washington, D.C., for E.E.O.C.
Frank J. Niemiec (argued), Davis, Murphy & Niemiec, Towanda, Pa., Brett O. Feese, McNerney, Page, Vanderlin & Hall, Williamsport, Pa., for Petti, et al.
Before ADAMS and HUNTER, Circuit Judges, and FISHER, * District Judge.
Pennsylvania law requires all state police officers to retire at age sixty. See 71 Pa.Stat.Ann. Sec. 65(d) (Purdon Supp.1984). In March 1983, Lieutenant Otto Binker, whose mandatory retirement from the Pennsylvania State Police ("PSP") under this provision was imminent, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the age requirement on the ground that it violated both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-634 (1982), and the Fourteenth Amendment. Shortly thereafter, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brought an action in the same court, challenging the age requirement under the ADEA, and seeking both injunctive relief and back-pay for all persons adversely affected by the law. The Binker and EEOC actions were consolidated in May 1983. In October 1984, the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, PSP and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, holding that the age limitation is a bona fide occupational qualification ("BFOQ") that is lawful under the ADEA. Relying principally upon that holding, the district court also concluded that the age limitation does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. These consolidated appeals by Binker, EEOC, and PSP ensued. 1 The district court therefore granted an injunction pending the appeals, which prevented the mandatory retirement of any PSP officers who reached age sixty. Shortly thereafter, a group of younger PSP troopers scheduled for promotions petitioned to intervene of right in the EEOC-Binker case, asking the district court to modify its injunction pending appeal to prevent PSP from rescinding its then-current Promotion eligibility list. The district court, 596 F.Supp. 1333, found the petition untimely and denied it. The petitioners appeal from that order.
On the eve of oral argument before this court, the Supreme Court announced its decisions in two ADEA cases, Johnson v. Mayor of Baltimore, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2717, 86 L.Ed.2d 286 (1985), and Western Airlines v. Criswell, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2743, 86 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985), which have clarified the test for determining whether age-related employment criteria are valid under the ADEA. We will therefore vacate district court's judgment and remand this case for reconsideration in light of Johnson and Criswell. 2
The ADEA provides that age may be a lawful criterion for employment decisions if it "is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business...." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 623(f)(1). In Criswell, the Supreme Court adopted the two-pronged BFOQ test first articulated in Usery v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 531 F.2d 224 (5th Cir.1976). Under this test, to establish a BFOQ test in an ADEA case an employer must first prove the existence of a job qualification "reasonably necessary to the essence of [its] business." Criswell, --- U.S. at ----, 105 S.Ct. at 2751. Second, the employer must prove that it is "compelled to rely on age as a proxy for the ... qualifications validated in the first inquiry." Id. The employer may satisfy this second prong of the Tamiami Trail test by showing either that it has "reasonable cause, that is, a factual basis, for believing that all or substantially all persons [in excluded age group] would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved," or that it is "impossible or impractical" to make individualized determinations of the capabilities of persons in the excluded group. Id. See Tamiami Trail, 531 F.2d at 236.
The appellants' primary contention here is that the district court misapplied the Tamiami Trail test by focusing on the wrong occupation. The majority of PSP officers at age sixty holds ranks higher than Trooper, and are assigned to primarily administrative positions that require infrequent physical activity. The appellants therefore argue here, as they did below, that the district court ought to have considered only whether age is a BFOQ for the relatively sedentary administrative assignments held by most older PSP officers. In rejecting this argument, the district court adopted the First Circuit's standard for defining "occupation" where a BFOQ defense is raised in an ADEA case involving state police jobs with similar requirements:
When ... a person signs up on a paramilitary uniformed force, where one is subject to generally unrestricted reassignment and performance of the most strenuous duties in any emergency, and undergoes the military training required of all recruits, with the expectation of receiving special pension and disability benefits, we would be loath to equate particular "assignments," even if of long duration, to "occupations."
Mahoney v. Trabucco, 738 F.2d 35, 39 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 513, 83 L.Ed.2d 403 (1984).
The district court found that PSP is a paramilitary organization, based on undisputed evidence that all PSP officers, regardless of rank, are required to carry guns and to respond with appropriate police action in emergency situations, even when off-duty, and are subject to reassignment to street duties when necessary. The district court therefore equated the "occupation" of PSP officer generally with that of PSP Trooper. Accordingly, in determining whether age is a BFOQ for PSP officers, the district court considered only evidence of the extent to which the capacity to perform street police duties declines with age. Given the undisputed evidence of the traditional police duties incumbent upon all PSP officers, we believe that the district court was correct in finding that PSP is a paramilitary organization as defined by the First Circuit in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of N.J., Dept. of Environmental Protection and Energy v. Heldor Industries, Inc., 92-5283
...they are incorporated in or support an order, judgment or decree of the court which is under appellate review."); EEOC v. Pennsylvania, 768 F.2d 514, 516, n. 1 (3d Cir.1985) (appeal from reasoning of the court below that it is not essential to the judgment, is not an appeal from the order o......
-
Lusardi v. Xerox Corp.
...supra, 472 U.S. at 413-17, 105 S.Ct. at 2751-53 (citing with approval Usery v. Tamiami Trail Tours, 531 F.2d at 227; EEOC v. Pennsylvania, 768 F.2d 514, 518 (3d Cir.1985) (employer’s burden of proof to make particularized factual showing with respect to all elements of BFOQ defense) (citing......
-
EEOC v. State of NJ, Civ. A. No. 85-2905.
...It has also had the benefit of an even more recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. EEOC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 768 F.2d 514 (3d Cir.1985). Based on all that is before it, it is the determination of this court that the application for a preliminary injunctio......
-
Binker v. Com. of Pa.
...Titler. VI. For the above-stated reasons, we will affirm the district court's order in all respects. 1 The first appeal, EEOC v. Pennsylvania, 768 F.2d 514 (3d Cir.1985), resulted in the case being sent back for additional fact finding. Binker filed another appeal with this court that was s......