Legal Opinion · Dissent

Johnson v. New York

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided February 24, 1995No. 580, Docket 94-7408Published

1DissentJacobs, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority frames the issue as “whether, by adopting the Air National Guard’s (the “Guard”) mandatory age-60 retirement policy as a term of employment,” the Division violated the ADEA. Having framed the issue in that way, the majority has little trouble concluding that the Division’s policy is facially discriminatory. I do not see the issue in terms of an adoption by reference of the Guard’s retirement policy. Nor do I think that the Division’s termination policy is “inextricably linked” to age. I would therefore consider the Division’s policy within the McDonnell…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Hazen Paper Co. v. BigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Gilligan v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v. NorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Ridgway v. AldrigeDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API