|
Reed v. Reno,
146 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. (Ky.) Jun. 8, 1998)
Reed and her co-Plaintiff, McGuire, both applied for positions
with FMC-Lexington, a medical referral center for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Reed applied for an accounting position, and McGuire applied for a laboratory
position. Both were told that the maximum entry age for a position in the Bureau
of Prisons was 36. Both were over that age. The Bureau classifies all jobs within
itself as law enforcement positions because all personnel come into contact with
detainees and are also required to be available for area searches and escape and
fog patrol. Furthermore, as a condition to being hired, all Bureau of Prisons
employees must undergo firearms, self-defense, and emergency response training.
The district court consolidated the two cases and entered summary judgment against
both Plaintiffs. The two Plaintiffs appealed.
The Sixth Circuit noted that it is well-established law
that the maximum entry age for law enforcement officers is a valid exception to
the ADEA. The question for this appeal was whether the Department of Justice acted
within the scope of the authority given to it by Congress when it classified all
positions with the Bureau of Prisons as law enforcement positions.
The Court of Appeals said that, when a court reviews an
agency’s construction of the statute which the agency administers, the court
examines whether Congress has directly spoken on the issue. If the intent of Congress
is clear, that is the end of the matter. If, however, Congress has not made its
intent clear, the question for the court is whether the agency’s interpretation
is based on a permissible construction of the statute. The reviewing court need
not conclude that the agency construction was the only one it permissibly could
have adopted to uphold the construction.
In the case at hand, the court examined the Federal Employee’s
Retirement System Act of 1986. That Act included in the definition of law enforcement
officers Bureau of Prisons employees, whose duties required frequent contact with
individuals in detention and were sufficiently rigorous that employment opportunities
should be limited to young and physically vigorous individuals, as determined
by the head of the employing agency. The Sixth Circuit also took note of U.S.C.
§ 3307(e), which granted the Department of Justice, as head of the employing agency,
the authority to set the maximum entry age for law enforcement positions within
the Bureau of Prisons.
The Sixth Circuit held that the FERS legislation, on its
face, plainly granted the Department of Justice explicit authority to identify
law enforcement positions. Pursuant to this grant of authority, the Department
of Justice engaged in several studies of the nature of the tasks required of its
employees. The studies revealed that all positions within the Bureau required
enough contact with detained individuals to meet the frequent direct contact requirement
of the definition for law enforcement positions under FERS. The court examined
these studies and determined that the conclusion they reached was reasonable and
that the agency did not abuse its discretion in declaring all of its employees
to be law enforcement personnel. For this reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the judgment of the district court dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint.
- Back to Sixth Circuit Court Cases
-
|
