Justices Will Rule on Issue of Early Forced Retirement Without Proof of Unfitness

The Supreme Court, tackling a far-reaching age discrimination issue, agreed Monday to decide whether municipal firefighters and law enforcement officers may be forced to retire before 70 without proof that their age makes them unfit for physically demanding duties.

The justices, five of whom are older than 75, announced that they would hear pleas from the Reagan Administration and six Baltimore firefighters contending that a city policy mandating retirement at 55 violates a federal law against age discrimination in employment.

The case expanded the court’s docket of age discrimination cases for the current term. Last week, the court ruled that Trans World Airlines violated the law by denying pilots over 60 the same chance to become flight engineers that it gave younger pilots. Another case under review involves a rule imposed by other airlines requiring engineers, like pilots, to retire at 60.

Wide Impact Seen

A ruling on the case (Johnson vs. Mayor of Baltimore, 84-518), expected by this summer, could have wide impact on government agencies that seek to impose retirement on firefighters and other public safety personnel in hazardous and punishing jobs.

Mandatory retirement before age 70 for firefighters, police, paramedics, lifeguards and others is “very widespread” among California municipalities, according to Richard Carpenter of the League of California Cities. The city of Los Angeles, however, is one of the few communities that allows its uniformed firefighters and police to stay on duty beyond 70 if they can pass annual physical and mental examinations.

At issue is a decision by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., that the Administration contends “seriously undermines” the federal law and could subject large numbers of public safety officers to arbitrary age limits.

In a 2-1 ruling last April, the appeals court, citing the “extremely stressful and hazardous” nature of firefighting, held that the Baltimore age limit was valid despite provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act barring most forced retirements before age 70.

Points to Congress’ Intent

The court cited federal civil service rules setting 55 as the general age limit for federal police and firefighters--and concluded that Congress, which did not veto those rules, must have intended to permit the same limits for cities.

Justice Department lawyers, appealing to the Supreme Court, contended that Congress’ acquiescence in the mandatory retirement age of 55 for some federal employees merely reflected caution--not endorsement of similar retirement ages at the local level.

The act, the Justice Department lawyers said, was clearly intended to require that older workers be evaluated on their individual abilities, “rather than stereotypes.” Employees should be permitted to stay on the job, they maintained, unless an employer could show that they could not perform their duties or could prove that youth was a legitimate job qualification.

Monday’s action came in a flurry of orders issued by the court, including an unusually long list of nine cases it agreed to decide before the end of the current term in July. Among other things, the justices:

--Let stand a $60-million sex discrimination award against Northwest Airlines, ending a 15-year legal battle between the airline and a group of stewardesses who brought suit charging they were paid less than male employees who performed essentially the same work as pursers. The justices refused to review an appellate ruling last July that is expected to result in back pay of from $15,000 to $60,000 each for some 3,300 female flight attendants. The airline began paying stewardesses and pursers equally in 1976 (Northwest Airlines vs. Laffey, 84-825).

--Agreed to try to clarify the extent to which federal anti-racketeering laws can be invoked in private civil actions against corporations, banks, brokerage houses and other major firms. Under review are provisions of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law originally aimed at giving prosecutors new tools to pursue organized crime.

Interpretation Questioned

In recent years, victims of a wide range of crimes, including securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, have brought a wave of litigation under the 1970 law. Such established firms as American Express Co., E. F. Hutton & Co., Lloyd’s of London and Merrill Lynch have found themselves in court as civil defendants under the act--and critics have charged that the law has been too broadly interpreted by the courts.

The justices agreed to review two cases reflecting conflicting interpretations of the law among federal appellate courts (Sedima vs. Imrex Co., 84-648; American National Bank vs. Haroco Inc., 84-822).

--Said they would decide whether federal regulations bar municipal agencies from imposing tighter health and safety rules on facilities that collect and distribute blood plasma. The court granted a hearing to officials from Hillsborough County, Fla., where a local ordinance requires prospective donors to be tested for hepatitis and to undergo breath analysis for alcohol content. Federal rules require hepatitis tests after blood is donated and do not mandate breath analysis.

The ordinance was challenged by a private concern, operating a plasma collection center, on the grounds that the law was preempted by the federal regulations. A federal appeals court agreed and struck down the ordinance. The county, joined by the Reagan Administration, asked the justices to hear the case, urging that local entities be permitted to issue regulations tougher than the federal rules (Hillsborough Co. vs. Automated Medical Laboratories, 83-1925).