Sabo v. Casey

• Decision Date: 14 February 1991
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 90-7945,91-0073.
• Citation: 757 F. Supp. 587
• Parties: Albert F. SABO, et al. v. Robert P. CASEY, et al. I. Raymond KREMER, et al. v. Robert P. CASEY, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

757 F. Supp. 587

Albert F. SABO, et al. v. Robert P. CASEY, et al.

I. Raymond KREMER, et al. v. Robert P. CASEY, et al.

Civ. A. Nos. 90-7945, 91-0073.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

February 14, 1991.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Steven M. Feldman, Gary Lee, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Howard M. Hermes, Administrative Office of Pa., Philadelphia, Pa., Gwendalia Mosley, Office of Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

NEWCOMER, District Judge.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiffs¹ are state judges sitting in the Courts of Common Pleas in either Philadelphia County or Delaware County, all of whom have or will reach age seventy before the expiration of their current terms of office. Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Article V, § 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution which mandates that all judges be retired upon reaching the age of 70 years.² The judges are bringing this action under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Age Discrimination Act ("ADEA" or "the Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et. seq., claiming that the Pennsylvania constitutional provision, Article V, § 16(b), violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the ADEA violates the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and requesting that this court strike the allegedly unconstitutional portion of the ADEA, and in so doing extend the protection of the ADEA to plaintiff judges and find that Article V, § 16(b) violates the ADEA.

The court will first address defendants' motions to dismiss in which they claim that this court has no jurisdiction over this matter. The court will then address defendants' contention that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their claim under the ADEA. Finally, the court will set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law on plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the mandatory "retirement" provision in Article V, § 16(b).

II. Motions to Dismiss

The Commonwealth has moved the court, during the hearing for a permanent injunction in this case, to dismiss the Commonwealth as a party. The Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, Nancy M. Sobelovitch, has also moved the court to dismiss her as a party to plaintiffs' action, or in the alternative, to enter judgment in her favor on plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the ADEA. The Commonwealth has also moved to dismiss The Honorable Leon Katz as a plaintiff in this suit as his claims are barred by res judicata.

The Commonwealth argues that plaintiffs' suit against it is barred by the eleventh amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court Administrator also contends that plaintiffs' suit is barred by the eleventh amendment, that she is not a necessary and proper party to this action, and further asserts that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs' constitutional attack on the ADEA.

The court will grant the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss it as a party to this action. The court will, however, deny the Court Administrator's request to dismiss her as a party. The Court Administrator's motion to enter judgment in her favor on plaintiffs' constitutional attack on the ADEA will be granted, and the Court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss Judge Katz as a plaintiff in this action.

A. The Eleventh Amendment:

1. The Commonwealth:

The eleventh amendment of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part, "the Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or in equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State ..." U.S. Const. amend. XI. The sovereign immunity granted the states in the eleventh amendment also extends to suits brought against a State by a citizen of that state. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). A state, therefore, cannot be sued in federal court unless the state consents to suit against it, absent "an unequivocal expression of congressional intent to `overturn the constitutionally guaranteed immunity of the several States,'" Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99, 104 S.Ct. 900, 907, 79 L.Ed.2d 67, 77-78 (1984) citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1146, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not override States' eleventh amendment immunity). Congress has made no indication that adjudication of suits brought pursuant to the fourteenth amendment mandate the abrogation of state immunity. The court will therefore dismiss the Commonwealth as a party to this action.

2. The Court Administrator:

Defendant Court Administrator of Pennsylvania contends that plaintiffs' action is barred by the eleventh amendment. However, although Commonwealth officials are named in this suit, this is not a suit against the Commonwealth for eleventh amendment purposes. A suit challenging the constitutionality of a state official's action is not one against the State. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). "The theory of Ex Parte Young was that an unconstitutional enactment is `void' and therefore does not `impart to the officer any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.' Ex Parte Young, at 160, 52 L.Ed.2d 714, 28 S.Ct. 441 at 454. Since the State could not authorize the action, the officer was `stripped of his official or representative character and was subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.'" Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 at 102, 104 S.Ct. 900 at 909, 79 L.Ed.2d 67, at 79-80. Therefore, despite that fact that this case involves a constitutional challenge to a state constitutional provision, the proper parties to this action are the state officials responsible for the allegedly unconstitutional behavior. Moreover, the eleventh amendment does not bar suits against state officials where, as here, the only means of relief sought are declaratory and injunctive relief to restrain a state official from prospective enforcement of an unconstitutional state law. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). "When a plaintiff sues a state official alleging a violation of federal law, the federal court may award an injunction that governs the official's future conduct." Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 at 102, 104 S.Ct. 900 at 909, 79 L.Ed.2d 67, at 79-80 citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). The eleventh amendment, therefore, does not bar this suit as against the Court Administrator.

B. Necessary and Proper Parties:

The Administrator of the courts further contends that she is not a necessary or proper party to this action and that this suit, as against her, should therefore be dismissed. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the Court Administrator is a necessary and proper party to this action.

Defendant Court Administrator is appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pursuant to Article V, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. She maintains the central records relating to the qualifications, employment status, basis of compensation and other personnel information of all personnel of the judicial system, pursuant to Rule 505 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration. Defendant Court Administrator is responsible for authorizing the treasurer to discontinue payment of salary to a judge upon reaching age seventy, and is responsible for certifying any vacancy to the secretary and governor so that the judicial position can be filled in the next election. Part of the relief sought by plaintiffs is that the Court Administrator be enjoined and restrained from causing plaintiffs to be removed because of mandatory retirement from the payroll of judges, from causing others to be placed on the payroll in their stead, and from causing a notice of vacancy to be certified to the Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth of the judicial office of each plaintiff. That the Court Administrator's duties are ministerial in nature does not preclude plaintiffs from including her in this action. Courts have often allowed suits to enjoin performance of ministerial duties in connection with allegedly unconstitutional laws. Finberg v. Sullivan, 634 F.2d 50 at 54 (3d Cir.1980) (en banc). "The inquiry is not on the nature of an official's duties but into the effect of the official's performance of his duties on the plaintiff's rights." Ibid. Clearly, the Court Administrator's official duties in combination with the acts of others deprive plaintiffs of their right to continue in office. The foregoing amply demonstrates that the Court Administrator is a proper party.

C. Res Judicata:

A federal court, when determining the preclusive effect of a judgment rendered by a state court, must look to the law of the rendering state. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1982). Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). Therefore, this court must "give preclusive effect to state court judgments whenever the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged would do so." Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96, 101 S.Ct. 411, 415, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980).

Pennsylvania law requires that in order "for the doctrine of res judicata to prevail there must be a concurrence of four conditions: 1) identity of issues, 2) identity of causes of action, 3) identity of persons and parties to the action, and 4) identity of the quality or capacity of the parties suing or sued." Safeguard Mutual Ins. Co. v. Williams, 463 Pa. 567, 345 A.2d 664, 668 (1975).

In 1988, plaintiff Leon Katz intervened in an action for declaratory judgment filed against the Commonwealth by an attorney, Harold Gondelman, in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. In Gondelman v. Com.,³ Gondelman, Katz and three other judges intervened in the...