Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Significance, Rationality Of Mandatory Retirement, Not The Best Means . . . But Rational Means, Impact

appellant provision court officers

Appellant

Massachusetts Board of Retirement, et al.

Appellee

Robert D. Murgia

Appellant's Claim

The state of Massachusetts Board of Retirement believed their provision for mandatory retirement of police officers at age 50 was rationally related to the interest of protecting the public and therefore did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Lawyer for Appellant

Terence P. O'Malley

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

Robert D. City

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White (unsigned)

Justices Dissenting

Thurgood Marshall (John Paul Stevens did not participate)

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

25 June 1976

Decision

There was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause: the state of Massachusetts' mandatory retirement provision rationally furthered its purpose of protecting the public by assuring physical fitness of the state police officers.

Related Cases

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).
Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970).
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
McIlvaine v. Pennsylvania, 415 U.S. 986 (1974).
Cannon v. Guste, 423 U.S. 918 (1975).
Weisbrod v. Lynn, 420 U.S. 940 (1975).

Sources

"Supreme Court Raises Barrier to Forced Retirement Rules." Criminal Justice Newsletter, July 15, 1985, pp. 1-2.

Additional Topics

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Significance

Although not the best means available for the purpose of protecting the public, the U.S. Supreme Court found that mandatory retirement of police officers at age 50 was a rational course of action for the state of Massachusetts. The Court also found that old workers were not a discrete and insular group and that the right of governmental employment was, by itself, not fundamental. Therefore, if the…

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Rationality Of Mandatory Retirement

The state of Massachusetts' statute required retirement of a uniformed state police officer upon attaining the age of 50. Adhering to this rule, the Massachusetts Board of Retirement retired Robert Murgia, an officer in the uniformed branch of the Massachusetts State Police. Believing he was in excellent health and deprived from his right to work, Murgia filed suit in the U.S. District Court for t…

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Not The Best Means . . . But Rational Means

Seven justices of the Supreme Court agreed that the retirement provision of the Massachusetts statute was constitutional. The justices, however, also reasoned that, as written, the act was "imperfect" because it sought to further the state interest of protecting the public by imposing a chronological limitation rather than one based on individualized testing. Justice Stevens did not take part in t…

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Impact

In the United States, as throughout the world, older people have often been victims of age discrimination. They experience problems with being hired for work and are often discharged because employers believe that advancing age objectively reduces their ability to work effectively. Such treatment not only affects the financial status of older people, but also their health. That is why Congress ena…

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Forced Retirement And Public-safety Officers

Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to combat what is sometimes caused "ageism." Among the law's provisions is a prohibition against age discrimination with regard to employees between the ages of 40 and 70 years old. Only if age can be demonstrated to be a "bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular busin…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.

<a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/13172/Massachusetts-Board-Retirement-v-Murgia.html">Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Significance, Rationality Of Mandatory Retirement, Not The Best Means . . . But Rational Means, Impact</a>

User Comments

about 1 year ago

Please, permit me to inform you of my desire of entering into business relationship with you for mutual benefit.
Hi my name is Martins Ugo, I am a manager of f1delitytrustbank in the uk since 2002,The sum of $950,000.00 was transfer to my branch in uk,This fund belonged to an overseas contractor name Mr.ADAM SANDLER who is based in the us The said contractor was involved in an automobile accident along Lagos ibadan express way in Nigeria on Saturday december 20th 2009 where his wife and only Son died as they were all traveling in the same car. There is no next of kin to the deceased as contained in the bank records and so, this fund has been kept in the dormant vaults of the bank for a long time now as unclaimed.
Upon getting these discoveries, I decided to embark on search via the internet in an effort to get to any of his family members or extended relative. This has been unsuccessful up until now.
Meanwhile, I desire to present you to the bank here now as the next of kin to the late Mr.ADAM SANDLER so that you can apply for claims of this fund being that you are from the same country just like the deceased and so, there is a possibility of some relationship between you.
I am here to guide you accordingly with the relevant issues at stake to present you as rightful beneficiary of this fund to ensure maximum success in this pursuit for our collective gain. All I require from you now is your wholehearted cooperation to enable us claim this fund successfully. Therefore, upon receipt of your positive response soon, we shall discuss on the sharing ratio and modalities of transfer of this fund to your favour.
Be informed that I have all relevant information and legal documents needed to back you up to facilitate this claim risk-free. if really you wanna see i will send you the bank detail so you can verify yourself and you will see the money..
Therefore, I await your response as soon as possible with the following detailed information about yourself:
Full Name..........................
Age....................................
Occupation........................
Marital status....................
Nationality of origin.....................
Phone number.. ................
Private E:mail......................
Please note! these information about yourself will enable me know you better as my intended business partner, and to also be able to communicate you better. you can email me back on ( martins_20101@yahoo.com )