Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gregory v. Ashcroft

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 20, 1991No. 90-50Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice White

I agree with the majority that neither the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) nor the Equal Protection Clause prohibits Missouri’s mandatory retirement provision as applied to petitioners, and I therefore concur in the judgment and in Parts I and III of the majority’s opinion. I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s reasoning in Part II of its opinion, which ignores several areas of well-established precedent and announces a rule that is likely to prove both unwise and infeasible. That the majority’s analysis in Part II is completely unnecessary to the proper resolution…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Bowen v. Georgetown University HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La CuestaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API