McMahon v. Barclay, 80 CIV 4339 (LBS).
Decision Date | 08 April 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 80 CIV 4339 (LBS).,80 CIV 4339 (LBS). |
Citation | 510 F. Supp. 1114 |
Parties | Daniel M. McMAHON and Andrea Sadoff, Plaintiffs, v. Hartley W. BARCLAY, Jr., Westchester County Personnel Office and New York State Department of Civil Service, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Anderson & Rubin, New York City, Leonard H. Rubin, New York City and Westchester Civil Liberties Union, New Rochelle, N. Y., of counsel.
Samuel S. Yasgur, Westchester County Atty., White Plains, N. Y., for Hartley W. Barclay, Jr. and Westchester County Personnel Office; Peter J. Holmes, Sr. Asst. County Atty., White Plains, N. Y., of counsel.
In this action for a declaration that § 58(1)(a) of the New York Civil Service Law is invalid, plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment with respect to Count II of the complaint.1 This count seeks a declaration that the provision of § 58(1)(a) which prohibits employment of persons over the age of 29 as police officers is invalid as being "arbitrary, unreasonable and bearing no rational relationship to any legitimate state purposes and thus deprives such persons of the equal protection of the laws." (Complaint ¶ 18).
This matter first came before Judge Vincent L. Broderick, then sitting in Part I, on plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction. After proceedings before Judge Broderick (see transcript of Proceedings held August 5 and 7, 1980), the court granted injunctive relief which was limited to a temporary restraining order since the case had been assigned to another judge.2 When the parties appeared before this Court soon thereafter, we were advised of the possibility that the legislature might repeal the age provision. With the consent of the parties, the temporary restraining order was continued and the matter was held in abeyance. The legislature declined to accept the recommendation of the Department of Civil Service that the provision be repealed and, although further legislative consideration of the question is still possible, plaintiffs, whose employment opportunities as police officers are as a practical matter hindered by this cloud on their employability, are loath to defer the matter further. They move for summary judgment. While defendants oppose the motion, no claim is made that plaintiffs lack standing, that there is any need for any discovery or evidentiary proceedings or that the question of the validity of § 58(1)(a) is not one which can be appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment.
Section 58(1)(a) provides:
Plaintiffs accept, as indeed they must (Mass. Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1975)) that the standard by which the statute is to be judged is the criterion of rationality. Plaintiffs assert, however, that the statute fails to pass even this lenient scrutiny.
Plaintiffs urge that the "entire statutory scheme is irrational" because of the numerous exceptions to the age requirement imposed only on capital police or local police force officers. Excepted from this provision are New York City police, (§ 58(5)), veterans, transferees and others.
Plaintiffs point further to the fact that the New York State Department of Civil Service, pursuant to a stipulation of settlement and discontinuance of an action brought by the United States Secretary of Labor, prepared and recommended introduction and passage of legislation to repeal the age requirements of § 58. As noted supra, this legislation was not enacted, apparently never reaching the floor of the legislature.
In its Memorandum to the legislature, the Department wrote:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zombro v. Baltimore City Police Dept.
...a successful equal protection challenge to age discrimination may be unlikely, it is not impossible. See, e.g., McMahon v. Barclay, 510 F.Supp. 1114, 1117 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (invalidating, under rational-basis test, New York Civil Service Law provision prohibiting employment of persons over age......
-
Hahn v. City of Buffalo, CIV-80-874C
...1982); Colon, et al. v. New York, 535 F.Supp. 1108 (S.D.N.Y.1982). Section 58(1)(a) was held to be unconstitutional in McMahon v. Barclay, 510 F.Supp. 1114 (S.D.N.Y.1981), a case decided before the decisions were handed down in the other three cases. Each of the aforementioned cases was dec......
-
USEEOC v. County of Calumet
...Court decided that old age is not a "suspect class" requiring "strict scrutiny of a legislative classification." Cf. McMahon v. Barclay, 510 F.Supp. 1114 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (State law forbidding hiring of police officers over age of 29 violates equal The fact that the Court analyzed the Massach......
-
Petrelli v. City of Mount Vernon
...the following basic requirements: (a) he is not less than twenty nor more than twenty-nine years of age.... In McMahon v. Barclay, 510 F.Supp. 1114, 1117 (S.D.N.Y.1981), Judge Sand declared Sec. 58(1)(a) unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since t......
-
Eeoc v. Prudential: New Rights for Older Workers
...Cases 284 (D.D.C. 1979); Hodgin v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 499 F.2d 859 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1122; Monahan v. Barkley, 510 F.Supp. 1114 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). 10. Marshall v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 576 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1978), pet. for rehearing den., 18 FFP Cases 501 (5t......