MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF RETIREMENT V. MURGIA
427 U.S. 307 (1976)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This case presents the question if the statutory provision that
requires a uniformed state police officer 'shall be retired . . . upon his attaining age
fifty,' denies such police officers equal protection of the laws in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
FACTS: Murgia (P) was an officer in the Uniformed Branch of the Massachusetts State
Police. The Massachusetts Board of Retirement retired him upon his 50th birthday. P sued
alleging that the operation of 26(3)(a) denied him equal protection of the laws. The
District Judge dismissed P's complaint on the ground that the complaint did not allege a
substantial constitutional question. On appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside the District
Court judgment and remanded the case. The three judge court filed an opinion that declared
26(3)(a) unconstitutional on the ground that 'a classification based on age 50 alone lacks a
rational basis in furthering any substantial state interest,' and enjoined enforcement of
the statute. On the equal protection claim, the Court found it unnecessary to apply a
strict-scrutiny test because that the age classification could not in any event withstand a
test of rationality. The District Court held that compulsory retirement at age 50 was
irrational under a scheme that assessed the capabilities of officers individually by means
of comprehensive annual physical examinations.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment