Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SCHULZE v. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE

May 1, 1990

CHARLES SCHULZE and BERNER KELLOUGH, Plaintiffs,
v.
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: ASPEN

 MARVIN E. ASPEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

 The plaintiffs, Charles Schulze and Berner Kellough, brought this two-count action against the Illinois State Police alleging violations of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. (as amended) ("ADEA"), and the Illinois Human Rights Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 68, paras. 1-101 et seq. ("IHRA"). The State Police have moved to dismiss both counts of the plaintiffs' complaint. For the following reason we deny the motion to dismiss.

 BACKGROUND

 Taking the well pleaded facts in the complaint as true, the plaintiffs were Special Agent Lieutenants on the State Police assigned to the Division of Criminal Investigation ("DCI") when on December 31, 1987, they were involuntarily retired solely because of age. At the time of their involuntary retirement, Schulze was 64 years old and Kellough was 67 years old.

 Both the ADEA and the IHRA apply to state government and make it unlawful for a state to discriminate against any employee on the basis of age except where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business, or where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.

 In favor of dismissal, the State Police argue that both the ADEA and the IHRA specifically exempt from their coverage law enforcement officers employed by a state. The October 31, 1986 amendment to the ADEA, which became effective January 1, 1987, provides:

 
(i) It shall not be unlawful for an employer which is a State . . . [or] an agency . . . of a State . . . to discharge any individual because of such individual's age if such action is taken --
 
(1) With respect to the employment of an individual as a . . . law enforcement officer and the individual has attained the age of . . . retirement in effect under applicable State or local law on March 3, 1983, and
 
(2) Pursuant to a bona fide. . . retirement plan that is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this Act.

 29 U.S.C. § 623 (i)(1) and (2). Similarly, the Human Rights Statute provides:

 
Exemptions: Nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit an employer . . . from . . . .
 
(7) Police and Firefighter Retirement.
 
Imposing a mandatory retirement age for . . . law enforcement officers if prior to December 31, 1993, the law enforcement officer . . . has attained the age of retirement in effect under applicable state or local law on March 3, 1983 and if such ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.