Mass. Board of Retirement v. Murgia
Case Date: 12/10/1975
Docket No: none
|
Robert Murgia, although he was in excellent physical and mental health, was forced to retire at age fifty according to state law. Murgia had been a uniformed officer in the state police force. Murgia successfully challenged the mandatory retirement law in district court. QuestionDid the Massachusetts law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Argument Mass. Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Oral ArgumentFull Transcript Text Download MP3Mass. Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Opinion Announcement Download MP3 Conclusion Decision: 7 votes for Mass. Board of Retirement, 1 vote(s) against Legal provision: Equal ProtectionIn a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the right of governmental employment was not per se fundamental, and that uniformed state police officers over 50 did not constitute a suspect class under the Clause. Applying a rational relationship test, the Court reasoned that the statute was sufficiently justified as a means of protecting the public "by assuring physical preparedness of [the] uniformed police." The Court noted that while the law may not have been the best means to accomplish this purpose, it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment merely because of its imperfections. |