# Update on age limit for test



## Defa48 (May 30, 2003)

Thanks for the advice. The girl I work with told me that she spoke to civil service and they told her that a town can apply the age limit at any time either after the test is taken or even after a list has been established. She gave them a hypothetical scenario: a person takes the test, gets a 98, is number one on the list and is 40 years old. If the town/city doesn't like that person, they can then put in for the age limit and the person can't get hired. Civil service told her yes! Seems kind of fishy to me. Some of the guys here want her to fight it, but she hasn't even got her score yet. Oh well!


----------



## Southside (Sep 4, 2003)

Defa48 said:


> Thanks for the advice. The girl I work with told me that she spoke to civil service and they told her that a town can apply the age limit at any time either after the test is taken or even after a list has been established. She gave them a hypothetical scenario: a person takes the test, gets a 98, is number one on the list and is 40 years old. If the town/city doesn't like that person, they can then put in for the age limit and the person can't get hired. Civil service told her yes! Seems kind of fishy to me. Some of the guys here want her to fight it, but she hasn't even got her score yet. Oh well!


NSP233,

I think this will answer your question on what can be done.


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

Simply put.....Age Discrimination!!!


----------



## Burner1 (Jul 30, 2002)

Do not hire an attorney to fight this! This law has been upheld by every state in the country (that has civil service)! It may sound like age discrimination, but it has been argued successfully that it is not. I have scoured "Westlaw" and cannot find any supporting case law in the contrary.


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

> This law has been upheld by every state in the country (that has civil service)! It may sound like age discrimination, but it has been argued successfully that it is not


Can you elaborate on this further please!


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

Maybe it would be something for the U.S. Supreme court to rule on then.


----------



## LeadDog17 (May 3, 2002)

RPD931 said:


> Maybe it would be something for the U.S. Supreme court to rule on then.


I believe they have. Can't find the case, BUT:

29USC261 prohibits ARBITRARY age discrimination. I believe the supreme court has ruled an under 21/over 40 age limit.
Also:



> The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The Act, which applies to all ages, permits the use of certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the Act's requirements. The Age Discrimination Act is enforced by the Civil Rights Center.
> 
> The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. The ADEA is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
> 
> Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) prohibits discrimination against applicants, employees and participants in WIA Title I-financially assisted programs and activities, and programs that are part of the One-Stop system, on the ground of age. In addition, WIA prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, political affiliation or belief, and for beneficiaries only, citizenship or participation in a WIA Title I-financially assisted program or activity. Section 188 of WIA is enforced by the Civil Rights Center.


The only legal forms of discrimination under the law are: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (under21/over40), disability or political affiliation. Everything else is fair game.


----------



## Burner1 (Jul 30, 2002)

Donahue v. City of Boston, 264 F. Supp. 2d 74, D. Mass (2003)

Recent case which stated:

"...imposing age limitation did not violate provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution."

"...rationally related to ligitamate goverment interests, and thus did not violate equal protection clauses."

Issue raised was not "...whether the court deems legislation wise, but rather whether the statutue falls within Legislature's power to enact..."

Anyone trying to go the route of Age Discrimination in this field, in Civil Service, will be defeated by "Summary Judgement" through "Estoppel" (which basically states this has already been ruled on and your SOL!).

Sorry for the bad news...this is only one case, but there are many out there and I'm not writing about them all.


----------

