BEFORE THE IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
JAMES A. MONTZ, Complainant, and IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION,
VS.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and CITY OF ESTHERVILLE, IOWA, Respondents.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Jurisdictional and Procedural Facts:
1. On September 28, 1989, Complainant James A. Montz filed his complaint,
CP#10-89-19298, alleging age discrimination in employment which is prohibited
by Iowa Code section 601A.6. The dates of alleged discrimination stated
in the complaint are "September 4-8, 1989 and continuing." (CP.
EX. #50). Official notice is taken that September 28, 1989 is twenty days
after September 8, 1989. Fairness to the parties does not require that they
be given an opportunity to contest this fact.
2. This complaint was investigated. After probable cause was found, conciliation
was attempted and failed. (CP. EX. # 51; R. EX. Y, Z, AA). Notice of Hearing
was issued on January 16,1991. The hearing was held on May 14-17 and 30,1991.
Background of Complainant Montz:
3. Complainant James A. Montz was born on December 22, 1945. In September
of 1989, therefore, he was forty-three years old. (CP. EX. # 53; Tr. at
11). Complainant Montz graduated from high school in Gruver, Iowa in 1963.
In that year, he also attended one semester at Estherville Community College.
(CP. EX #53; Tr. at 12).
4. Complainant Montz then joined the Navy and served in various locations
from February 1964 to December 1984, when he was honorably discharged in
Brunswick, Maine. During twenty years of his service, he was employed as
an aerographer (weather forecaster). CP. EX. #53; Tr. at 16, 19, 20-23,
24, 25, 30).
5. While still in the Navy, Complainant Montz developed an interest in
becoming a law enforcement officer. He had served on the reserve base police
force while stationed in Guam. (Tr. at 31). He also volunteered and was
selected for shore patrol, which, is not a vocational speciality in the
Navy. (Tr. at 62729).
6. He began working as a reserve deputy with the Sagadahoc County, Maine
sheriff's department approximately six months before he left the Navy. (Tr.
at 30). During this time, he would ride with regular deputies and gain knowledge
and expertise in law enforcement. He could not make arrests until he had
completed the Maine Reserve Officer School. (CP. EX. # 53; Tr. at 31).
7. On April 19, 1985, within five months after his discharge, Complainant
Montz completed the two week Reserve Officer School at his own expense.
(CP. EX. # 53; Tr. at 31, 607). This enabled him to undertake the full sworn
duties and responsibilities of a police officer as a reserve deputy. (Tr.
at 31).
8. He was assigned to a park, Popham Beach, in order to relieve deputies
there who were then free to patrol the county. He was required to wear a
fire arm, make reports and allowed to make arrests. He would also transport
prisoners. The reserve position was as intellectually and physically demanding
as a regular police officer position. Montz served as reserve deputy for
approximately three years. (CP. EX. # 53; Tr. at 32-34, 35).
9. In February, 1986, the Complainant became
a full-time police officer with the Police Department of Bath, Maine. (CP.
# 53; Tr. at 35, 39). On March 27, 1987, he completed the twelve week Municipal/County
Basic Police School at the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, which is the
state training course designed for regular Maine police officers, not reserve
officers. (CP. EX # 53; Tr. at 34,39,48). During his employment with the
Bath Police, Department, he also underwent required continuing in-service
education. This included a two day course which resulted in Montz being
certified on the intoxilizer, a device which measures blood/alcohol content.
Other courses included the handling of hazardous wastes at accident scenes,
"Infectious Disease Instruction," "Roadblocks," "Liquor
Laws", and "Selective Patrol Drug Enforcement," (CP. EX.
# 53;Tr. at 50).
10. In Bath, Complainant Montz worked for a
department consisting of 17 police officers and a chief. The city had a
population of approximately 10,000. A major employer, the Bathiron Works,
also employed 10,000 people who came into the city to work. (Tr. at 40).
In this environment, Montz performed all the duties of a patrol officer
including enforcing all city regulations and state codes on vehicles, criminal
law, parking ordinances, and animal control. The majority of the time he
worked in a marked patrol unit at all hours on rotating shifts. He also
did two hour foot patrols at night. (Tr. at 41-42). He made arrests, including
arrests where physical force had to be used. (Tr. at 42-45).
11. In March 1989, after three years in the Bath Police Department, Complainant
Montz resigned in good standing with the Department. He and his family then
moved to Estherville in order to take care of his mother who has Alzheimer's
disease. (CP. EX. # 53; Tr. at 41, 51, 53, 608).
Background of Respondents City of Estherville
and Civil Service Commission:
12. The City of Estherville, Iowa has a population
of approximately 6,700 people. It has a student population of approximately
400 high school students and 500 students at lowa,Lakes Community College.
Estherville is located near the Iowa Lake3 which results in there being
an increase in the population due to people who live in Estherville while
working at the Lakes. This proximity to a resort area sometimes causes problems,
such as loud parties, with younger people who get involved with alcohol.
(Tr. at 993-95).
13. The Estherville Police Department consists of Chief Paul Farber,
a captain, two sergeants, and eight police officers. Chief Farber is the
administrative head of the department and handles the scheduling, budgeting,
and training for the department. His is the only "desk job." All
other officers do patrol work. (Tr. at 998). Officers are required to know
different techniques and skills. Some officers, for example, handle the
Law Enforcement Intelligence Network, which is a communications system utilized
by officers conducting criminal investigations. One officer does accident
reconstruction. Three officers are advanced accident investigators. Other
officers also do community work, such as education on drug abuse, in addition
to patrol work. (Tr. at 998-999).
14. The Estherville Civil Service Commission was founded in 1934. It
was established to eliminate political cronyism in staffing, to set hiring
and promotion standards, and to administer an appeal process for discharged
police officers. (Tr. at 113031,1134). The Commission consists of three
members. It is involved with the hiring and discharge of no city employees
other than the police. (Tr. at 257). In 1989, Vaughn Brua served as secretary
to the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Brua was also employed as the city
clerk and finance director of the City of Estherville. (Tr. at 256). The
secretary is not a member of the Commission, but a staff person who does
record retention, takes minutes,, and performs other miscellaneous functions.
(R. Ex. J; Tr. at 256). The chairman of the Commission in 1989 was Barry
Huntsinger, who has been on the Commission for twenty years. (Tr. at 1128-1130).
The Hiring Process:
15. Chief Farber became aware of an opening when he learned that an officer
would be leaving on disability pension in August of 1989. (Tr. at 293).
As there was a vacancy in a police officer position, and there was no current
certified list of candidates, he requested that a meeting of the Civil Service
Commission be held. (Tr. at 257, 290-91, 1134). The secretary of the Commission
was then directed to and did place advertisements for the position in the
Des Moines Register and the local paper. (CP. EX. 52, 77; Tr. at 258, 261,
1170). A closing date for submission of applications, of September 22, 1989,
and a test date for written and physical agility tests, of September 30,
1989, were also set. (CP. EX. 6, 52, 77-1 Tr. at 258, 977).
16. Potential applicants would either contact the Civil Service Commission
by mail or by personally coming to the office and request applications.
They were given application packets which included a list of requirements
for the position, the application, and other forms. (CP. EX. 53; Tr. at
62, 265, 977, 1170). A list of persons requesting applications was kept.
(CP. Ex. 57; Tr. at 265, 266-67). At least thirty-three individuals requested
applications. Of those, sixteen made application for the position. (CP.
EX. 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 14-19, 53; Tr. at 267-69).
17. All applications received were reviewed by Commission Secretary Vaughn
Brua to determine whether all the necessary forms are completed. (Tr. at
27G, 1171). In September of 1989, he alone made the final determination
concerning whether those of the Commission's minimum standards, which could
be shown to have been satisfied by review of the application, were, in fact,
met by the applicant. (Tr. at 270, 271, 275-76). Applicants who did not
meet the minimum standards were so informed by letter. (Tr. at 271).
18. Applicants who were found to have met the minimum standards were sent letters notifying them of the test date and location. (CP. EX. #6; Tr. at 27174). The written, psychological, and physical agility tests were administered to the remaining applicants by the Civil Service Commission. (Tr. at 273, 278, 27980, 1074). The Commission then reviewed the scores and compiled a certified list composed of eight candidates who (a) were not screened out by the psychological test, and (b) had received the highest test scores. All candidates who did not make the certified list were so informed by letter. (Tr. at 279, 977, 1078, 1080, 1075, 1134, 1171, 1172).
19. The certified list was then transmitted to police chief Farber. (Tr.
at 1074, 1174). Chief Farber then began doing background checks on the certified
list candidates. He also established a time for the candidates to do
oral interviews with himself and other staff members. After the oral
interviews, Chief Farber made the final decision as to who should be hired.
(Tr. at 978).
Complainant Montz' Application:
20. Once Complainant Montz saw the advertisement for the police officer
position in the Estherville Daily News, he obtained a complete application
packet approximately one to two weeks before the closing date for applications.
(CP. EX. 52; Tr. at 58, 62). While reviewing the packet, he noticed item
"a" on the list of the minimum standards which required than an
officer:
Has reached his or her twentieth birthday and has not reached his or her thirty-third birthday at the time of his or her appointment.
(CP. EX. 55; Tr. at 62-63).
21. This standard did not appear to Montz to be consistent with either
the advertisement indicating the City of Estherville was an "E.O.E."
i.e. an "Equal Opportunity Employer," or the reference in the
application to the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Therefore,
Montz sought clarification of the Civil Service Commission's policy from
Vaughn Brau, the Commission's secretary. (CP. Ex. 52, 53; Tr. at 63-66,
263). Brau informed him that the reason for the age requirement was a chapter
of the Iowa Code, covering the retirement of police and fire personnel,
which indicates that officers must serve 22 years and reach age 55 in order
to be eligible for early, voluntary retirement. (R. EX. U; Tr. at 66-67).
Apparently this was a reference to Iowa Code section 411.6(l) (a). (R. EX.
JJ).
22. After speaking to Brua, Complainant Montz talked to Chief Farber about
the age requirement. (Tr. at 96, 98). Farber informed him that he didn't
have any objections to having an older officer with, experience and training
in the department. (Tr. at 9e 99). At that time, they also discussed the
requirement than an officer:
Must be certified by the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy or have a two year Associate Degree in Law Enforcement or equivalent.
(CP. EX. 55; Tr. at 97-98, 205). Chief Farber informed Montz that, as
a person with out of state certification from Maine, he could meet the Iowa
Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) certification requirement either by taking
a test or by attending the five week course at the academy. (Tr. at 97-98,
205).
23. Despite the age requirement, Complainant Montz submitted his application
to the City of Estherville on September 21, 1989. (CP. EX. #53; Tr. at 67).
Since the advertisement had indicated that the City was an equal opportunity
employer, and the application form indicated age discrimination was prohibited,
he felt he had a right to apply and be considered for the job. (CP. EX.
52, 53; Tr. at 68). On the same day that Montz submitted his application,
Vaughn Brua sent him a rejection letter. (CP. EX. #56; R. EX. U; Tr. at
68-69,-277, 290, 481, 531).
24. The body of the letter stated in full:
Based on the information contained in your application, specifically a birth date of December 22, 1945, you would not qualify under the minimum standards established by the Civil Service Commission. I am enclosing a copy of our Minimum Standards for Police Officers. Item "a" establishes minimum and maximum ages.
I am sorry we are unable to consider you for the position of police officer. Thank you for your interest.
(CP. EX. #56) (emphasis, added).,This rejection letter was received by
Montz on September 22, 1989. (Tr. at 68).
Direct Evidence of Discrimination:
Implementation, Maintenance and Application of Maximum Age Hiring
Policy.
25. As previously noted:
there is overwhelming direct evidence that Respondents applied a maximum age hiring policy whereby applicants who would be age 33 or over at the time of their appointment would be rejected due to their age, and that age, in accordance with this policy, was the motivating factor in the Respondents' rejection of Complainant Montz's and Riley Fairchild's applications.
(Ruling on Motion to Dismiss-paragraph 2).
26. The Respondents admitted that there were maximum age qualifications
for the position. (Respondents' Answer: R. Ex. U; Tr. at 478, 530). The
Respondents maintained a written policy setting forth its practice of not
hiring applicants who will have reached or exceeded their thirty-third birthday
at the time of their appointment. (CP. EX. # 54, 55; Tr. at 1209). See Finding
of Fact No. 20. This policy was formally implemented by the Civil Service
Commission by Resolution No. 2 passed on June 7, 1978. (CP. EX. #54; Tr.
at 258-259). Prior to that time, Respondents had utilized an age 39 maximum
age limit. (R. EX. EE: Tr. at 1139).
27. The application of this age discriminatory policy in rejecting Complainant
Montz is demonstrated by the letter of September 21, 1989 from Brua to Montz.
(CP.EX. 56). See Finding of Fact No. 24. Vaughn Brua sent Montz and other
potential applicants the "Minimum Standards for Law Enforcement Officers'
which stated the maximum age requirement. (CP. EX. .#54, 55; Tr. at 62-63,
260, 265). Brua admitted that he (1) personally talked with Montz and informed
him about the maximum age requirement. (2) was the individual who determined
that Montz was unqualified, and (3) the sole reason Montz was determined
to be unqualified was his failure to meet the age qualification set forth
in the Respondents' minimum standards. (CP. EX. # 55, 56, 85; R. EX. U;
Tr. at 27778, 288-89, 324, 351, 481, 528, 531-32). See Finding of Fact No.
17.
28. Vaughn Brua also admitted that failure to meet the maximum age requirement
was the reason for the rejection of Riley Fairchild. (CP. EX. #2; 85; R.
EX. U; Tr. at 276-77, 319, 324, 494). Brua sent Fairchild a letter, dated
September 14, 1989, which stated:
You have a very impressive resume and would appear to be the type of individual we are looking for. The Civil Service Commission has established minimum standards for prospective police officers, a copy is enclosed. Item "a" deals with a minimum age of 20 years old and maximum age of less than 33 years old. Your application states you will be 33 years of age on September 18. When an Appointment is made to the position, you will not meet the minimum standard.
I am sorry we will be unable to consider you and appreciate your interest.
(CP. EX. # 2; Tr. at 276). Notations on a list
of persons requesting applications, which was compiled at Brua's direction,
sate "Not qualified. Age," next to Montz' and Fairchild's names.
(CP. EX. # 57; Tr. at 265-66).
Statements Reflecting an Age Bias:
29. In addition, there were statements by those
involved in establishing and implementing the hiring standards for Respondents
City of Estherville and Civil Service Commission which reflected an age
bias. Civil Service Commission Chairman Barry Huntsinger, for example, stated
that part of the reason for reducing the maximum age limit to age 33 was
"trying to develop a younger department." (Tr. at 11 39, 1207).
He agreed that the city's motivation and intent was to develop and hire
younger people as police officers. (Tr. at 1207-08). He acknowledged that
"the cap was really designed to develop a younger department
because of this whole issue of knowing that older officers do not perform
as well as younger officers." (Tr. at 1160). He opined that "older
officers do not do a lot of jobs aggressively like younger officers do.Younger
officers will respond a little faster to emergencies better than older ones
who get a little sluggish, a little slower, and a little harder to do those
tasks." (Tr. at 1200).
30. Police Chief Farber stated that the age
restriction "facilitates an officer doing his job here [in] that the
younger officer is able to respond quicker. He has better responses and
is better able to protect the public." (Tr. at 1017). He also acknowledged
that the age restriction encourages a younger police force. (Tr. at 1017-18).
Respondents Did Not Establish Reliance on Any Reason Other Than
Age in Their Rejection of
Complainant Montz:
31. One of the affirmative defenses set forth by the Respondents
on brief is that, even if there had been no age requirement, Complainant
Montz would:
not have passed the initial screening, he would not have been allowed to compete for the position, he would not have been permitted to test for the position, he would never have been placed on the certified list by the Estherville Civil Service Commission and he would never have been considered for hire by Chief Farber because he did not have ILEA certification or a two year law degree in law enforcement or its equivalent.
Respondents' Brief at 7-8. For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of
Law, it is important to ascertain whether Respondents established they actually
relied on these additional reasons at the time of Complainant Montz' rejection
on September 21, 1989.
Brua Alone Made the Final Decision that Montz Was Unqualified.
32. It is important to reiterate that Civil
Service Commission Secretary Vaughn Brua alone made the final decision that
Complainant Montz was unqualified. See Findings of Fact Nos. 17, 23-24,
27. (CP. EX. 85; Tr. at 270, 271-72, 275-76, 289-90). The only assistance
he had in this process was that of Ms. Jody Pospisil, an employee in Mr.
Brua's office, who assisted in review of the applications. Nonetheless,
he personally reviewed all applications. (Tr. at 266, 275). If, in
September of 1989, there had been an application with respect to which Brua
was uncertain as to whether the minimum qualifications were met, he would
have consulted either the Civil Service Commission or Chief Farber. There
was no such application. (Tr. at 271-72).
33. Because neither Brua, nor any other witness, nor any document in
the record supports Chairman Huntsinger's testimony that Brua was assisted
by an unnamed member of the Civil Service Commission, this testimony is
not credible. (Tr. at 1170, 1224). Chairman Huntsinger played no role
in making the decision that Montz was unqualified because he
did not participate in the selection process until the day the written,
psychological, and agility tests were given. He could not even verify that
he had ever seen Montz' application. (Tr. at 1224-25).
34. There is no evidence to indicate that Police Chief Farber reviewed
Complainant Montz' application or participated in determining whether he
was qualified once he applied. He described his role in the selection process
as beginning when he obtained a certified list. (Tr. at 1074). He did not
even know whether Vaughn Brua had disqualified Complainant Montz by letter
within 24 hours of his application. (Tr. at 967). See Finding of Fact No.
23.
Brua Relied Only on Montz' Failure to Meet the Maximum Age Requirement
in Disqualifying Him on September 21, 1989:
35. The evidence in the record demonstrates
that age was the sole criterion actually relied on by Respondents
for rejecting Complainant Montz. The only reason identified by Brua,
in his letter of September 21, 1989 to Complainant Montz, for Montz' disqualification
was his failure to meet the standard set forth in item "a" of
the Minimum Standards for Police Officers which set forth the maximum age
requirement. (CP. EX. 55, 56). See Findings of Fact Nos. 20, 23-24. Brua
admitted that failure to meet this age requirement was the minimum
standard which was not met by Montz. Age was the reason Montz
was rejected. (Tr. at 278, 324).
36. In his testimony, Brua acknowledged that he went straight to the
age requirement in rejecting Montz because they had discussed this requirement
prior to his application. (Tr. at 532). This is consistent with his statements
during the investigation to the effect that, after receiving Montz' application,
he had only reviewed it sufficiently to determine that Montz had not met
the age requirement. He did not discover that Montz did not have an ILEA
certification or a two year associate degree in law enforcement until after
he had rejected Montz. (R. EX. CC - Interview with Brua, Forsyth, and Farber
at 9-10, 18, 20, 21).
37. The conclusion that age was the only reason for Montz' rejection
is also supported by the answer to an interrogatory propounded to the Respondents
which requested "all the reasons for which you claim the determination
[that Complainant Montz was not qualified for the position of police officer]
was made." Vaughn Brua's response was "To enforce the minimum
qualifications for the position adopted by the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Montz exceeded the maximum age qualification." (CP. EX. # 85).
38. The conclusion that age was the only actual reason for Complainant
Montz' rejection is also consistent with the notation on the Respondent
Civil Service Commission's list of applicants which indicates Montz was
disqualified due to his age. Although the same list has a notation for another
applicant, Alvin Blackburn, indicating "Not Qualified. Assoc. 2 yrs.
college," there is no such notation next to Montz' name. (CP. EX. 57).
39. The only evidence tending to indicate that reasons other than age
were actually relied on by the Respondents at the time of Montz' rejection
is the erratic testimony of Commission Chairperson Huntsinger. Huntsinger
at first agreed that the Respondents' answers to interrogatories gave only
age as the reason for the rejection of both Montz and Fairchild. (Tr. at
1184-85). He also denied that the use of the term "minimum qualifications,"
in the first sentence of Brua's response to this interrogatory, somehow
indicated that the Respondent relied on reasons other than age for Complainant
Montz' rejection. (CP. EX. # 85; Tr. at 1213). However, he later implied
the opposite. (Tr. at 1214). His final position was that, since he did not
write the response, he could not say what the reference to minimum standards
meant. (Tr. at 1222).
40. Huntsinger initially admitted that neither
the Respondents' rejection letter to Montz nor the rejection letter to Fairchild
indicated any reason for their rejection other than age. (CP. EX. # 2, 56;
Tr. at 1177-78). He acknowledged that the Respondents never communicated
any reason to Montz for his rejection other than age, (Tr. at 1183), and
that the reference to minimum standards in the rejection letter to Fairchild
referred to the age requirement. (Tr. at 1186). Huntsinger subsequently
asserted, however, that there were communications to Montz in which he was
told that he was rejected due to failure to have ILEA certification or an
Associate of the Arts degree in Law Enforcement. (Tr. at 1187-88). He also
later implied that references to minimum standards in Brua's rejection letters
to Montz and Fairchild, indicates that "minimum requirements"
is a reason separate from age, i.e. "If you go by the letters, it is
age and minimum requirements." (CP. EX. # 2, 56; Tr. at 1224).
41. Since Huntsinger actually played no part in the rejection
of Complainant Montz, his inconsistent testimony on this issue is entitled
to little weight and does not disturb the conclusion that the Respondents
never actually relied on Complainant's failure to have either ILEA certification
or an AA degree in their rejection of him. See Finding of Fact No. 17.
Respondents' Affirmative Defenses Based on Reliance On Advice of Counsel
and Various Other Authorities in Establishing Its Maxim m Age Hiring Limit:
42. On brief, Respondents asserted that, in formulating and maintaining
their maximum age hiring limit, they relied on the following authorities:
a. the advice and interpretations of law provided by their legal counsel;
b. the interpretations of Iowa Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) regulations and Iowa law provided by Ben Yarrington, Director of the ILEA, to police chief Paul Farber;
c. Iowa Code section 411.6(l) (a);
d. Iowa Code section 400.8;
e. a 1980 opinion of the Iowa Attorney General;
f. analyses provided in federal court decisions;
g. the "silence" or failure of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to respond to a January 16, 1986 letter from the City of Estherville, which answered an Iowa Civil Rights Commission inquiry on its maximum hiring limit;
h. the ILEA regulation at 501 IAC 2.3 (1988);
i. the "based on the nature of the occupation" or bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception set forth at Iowa Code subsections 601A.6(l)(a) and (c).
(Respondent's Brief at 33-36).
43. The following findings of fact on items "a" through "h"
will largely focus on whether there is evidence supporting Respondents'
assertions that they relied on these authorities in establishing and maintaining
the maximum age hiring limit. The questions of whether reliance on these
sources actually constitutes a valid defense under the facts of this case
or whether the Respondents' legal interpretations based on these sources
are correct will be discussed in the conclusions of law. More detailed findings
of fact will be made concerning the bona fide occupational qualification
(BFOQ) defense.
Reliance on Advice and Interpretations of
Legal Counsel and of Ben Yarrington,
Director of the ILEA:
43. The Respondents relied on the legal interpretations of City Attorney
Gordon Forsyth in establishing the maximum hiring age limit in 1978 and
in maintaining it since then. (Tr. at 785, 790, 795, P,20, 1156).
44. Although Police Chief Farber was familiar with ILEA Director Ben
Yarrington and his opinion on the legality of maximum age hiring limits
for police officers, there is no evidence in the record to support the proposition
that this opinion was relied upon by Respondents to support the establishment
or maintenance of a maximum age hiring limit. (Tr. at 100916). Chief Farber's
knowledge of Yarrington's opinion could not have played a part in the establishment
of the limit in 1978 as Farber was not employed by the City of Estherville
until October of 1987. (Tr. at 96162).
45. Taken in context, ILEA Director Yarrington's opinion is not favorable
to either the Respondents' position that it may defend its maximum age hiring
limit by relying on his opinion or to their position that age is a bona
fide occupational qualification for police officer. At best, it offers some
support to the Respondent's position that the age limit is justified by
the voluntary retirement pension law at Iowa Code section 411.6(l)(a):
[The ILEA has] eliminated, even though in the beginning we had maximum age limits of 60, in other words, there was a minimum of 21 and a maximum age of 60 in order to be hired as a peace officer. Not to continue, but to initially be
hired.
. . .
We lowered the minimum age to 18 when the age of majority law came out through the legislature a number of years back. And we eliminated the maximum age and inserted a required physical agility test. Feeling that, for example, if a man retires from the highway patrol at 55 and wants to be cop of a one-cop town, and can still pass the physical agility test, he can do that. And we do have some people come through here in their 50's. Usually they're from the very small towns.
. . .And they pass the physical agility test before they were hired so we know when they come here, ... they can do the things they're required to do when they get here. But there is no maximum hiring age specified by us, but if a town wants to set one they can, but if they're ever challenged, they're going to have to justify it, not us.
. . .
Some of them, and I think legitimately so, will hire people not beyond a certain point because they can't fulfill and take advantage of a retirement system.
. . .
In other words, if you're starting on a job at 48 years of age, and retirement takes you to 55, you just haven't done much for yourself in earning that retirement.
...
It's usually the larger towns that are setting a maximum age. The smaller ones usually don't.
. . .
That's strictly up to them if they do it.
(R. EX. CC - Interview with Ben Yarrington at
11).