Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Police Agencies (From Policing and the Law, P 193-208, 2002, Jeffrey T. Walker, ed. -- See NCJ-193362)

• NCJ Number: 193362
• Author(s): Joseph E. Pascarella
• Date Published: 2002
• Length: 16 pages
• Sale Source: Prentice Hall Publishing
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

In this chapter, an overview is presented on the policy issues and the legal framework of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) as it related to the application and implementation of policies regarding maximum hiring ages and mandatory retirement ages in policing; an empirical analysis investigating the factors that might potentially predict the chances of a specific court decision upholding a maximum hiring age, mandatory age policy, or declare it invalid is also presented.

Abstract

Traditionally, police departments have restricted employment opportunities to those applicants falling within specific age parameters. The typical minimum appointment age as a police officer was at least 20 years of age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was enacted in 1967 to protect workers from discrimination based on age. The application of the ADEA to State and local police agencies has perplexed those in charge of developing police agency personnel policy. An empirical analysis was conducted to explore the factors that would predict the outcome of a court’s decision and may determine a police agency’s success in having the court rule in favor of upholding age restriction policies. The cases sought consisted of legal challenges to laws and/or policies of age restriction or physical fitness testing. A total of 80 cases fit the criteria of all the parameters required. Findings indicated that when the specific policy issue was a maximum hiring age, it was more likely to be upheld than to be declared illegal by the courts. This was consistent with the public perceptions that fitness was clearly associated with youth. The justices were more likely to uphold a mandatory retirement law if there were physical fitness standards in agencies with mandatory retirement policies. Police agencies should develop uniform guidelines for physical fitness tests as a business necessity and should coincide with unique operational functions of the agency. To resolve the age discrimination issue and balance the policy concerns of public safety and individual rights, fitness tests might offer the best judgment-proof methods. Appendix