John Miller, Jr. v. Hillary Clinton
402 U.S. App. D.C. 106
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Miller, a U.S. citizen, worked abroad for the State Department in Paris under a personal services contract authorized by 22 U.S.C. § 2669(c).
- The Local Compensation Plan for France mandated retirement at age 65, and Miller was informed his separation would take effect on his 65th birthday.
- There was no performance deficiency; the termination was based solely on age, and Miller exhausted EEOC remedies before suit.
- Miller sued in district court claiming his forced retirement violated the ADEA; the district court dismissed, relying on § 2669(c) to exempt him.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed the case de novo to resolve whether § 2669(c) exempts Miller from the ADEA and thus nullifies the ADEA’s prohibition on age discrimination abroad.
- The court ultimately held that § 2669(c) does not provide a valid exemption from the ADEA for Miller, reversing the district court and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 2669(c) exempt Miller from the ADEA's age protections? | Miller contends ADEA applies abroad; § 2669(c) does not override it. | DOS maintains § 2669(c) authorizes the Secretary to disregard ADEA when contracting for services abroad. | No exemption; ADEA applies; district court reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) (ADEA prohibits age discrimination in the workplace)
- Johnson v. Mayor of Baltimore, 472 U.S. 353 (1985) (no permissible age cap for federal employment)
- Strawberry v. Albright, 111 F.3d 943 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (statutory context for mandatory retirement under certain programs)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (ADEA remedial purpose and policy against discrimination)
- Ford v. Mabus, 629 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (ADEA protections for federal employment and related context)