Landers v. Stone
2016 Ark. 272
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Arkansas Judicial Retirement System (Act 365 of 1953; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 24-8-201 et seq.) is mandatory for judges; eligibility for retirement benefits is generally service-based (minimum 8 years).
- Statutes at issue (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 24-8-215(c) & 24-8-710(b)) provide that a judge who is vested and continues to serve after reaching age 70 and after attaining sufficient service to retire forfeits retirement benefits; a judge who turns 70 during a term may complete that term without forfeiture.
- Appellants (four judges, three currently serving; one retired) sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of Amendment 80 (impermissible additional qualifications), equal protection, due process/taking, and constructive discharge.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees (Arkansas Judicial Retirement System officials); appellants appealed. Parties agreed facts were not material; issues were legal and reviewed de novo.
- The majority affirmed summary judgment, rejecting all four constitutional challenges; two justices concurred separately (one emphasizing standing and policy), and three justices dissented (finding statutes unconstitutional as an indirect qualification and equal-protection violation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§ 24-8-215(c) & 24-8-710(b) add an unconstitutional qualification to judicial office (Amendment 80) | Forfeiture is a de facto age-based qualification that indirectly prevents judges from serving past 70 without losing vested benefits (impermissible legislative addition to constitutional qualifications) | Statutes do not bar service after 70; they only condition eligibility for legislatively created retirement benefits (a matter of legislative grace), so they do not add a qualification | Statute does not create an additional constitutional qualification; upheld |
| Equal protection (age/classification) | Scheme irrationally discriminates: it prevents experienced judges (elected earlier) from serving while allowing first-time judges over 70 to serve full terms — arbitrary and underinclusive | Age-based classifications get rational-basis review; promoting retirement at 70 rationally furthers legitimate aims (judicial fitness, turnover, avoiding removal proceedings) | Rational-basis satisfied; equal-protection challenge rejected |
| Due process / Taking (forfeiture of vested contributions) | Forfeiture may take vested retirement benefits (including employee contributions) without due process or just compensation | Appellees presented affidavit assuring refund of personal contributions if benefits forfeited; plaintiffs failed to rebut this evidence | Court accepted refund assurance; appellants failed to carry burden; claim rejected |
| Constructive discharge / forced retirement analogy | Forfeiture of benefits creates an intolerable choice that effectively forces judges to leave (constructive discharge) | Incentivizing retirement is not a hostile work environment; statutory retirement incentives differ from employer-induced intolerable conditions | Claim lacks merit; analogy rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) (upheld state mandatory judicial-retirement age under rational-basis review; states have legitimate interest in a capable judiciary)
- Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976) (age-based mandatory retirement for public employees upheld under rational-basis review)
- Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 (1979) (upheld mandatory retirement for certain federal employees; legislative classifications may be imperfect but rational)
- Daniels v. Dennis, 366 Ark. 338 (2006) (holding legislative imposition of additional qualifications for judicial office unconstitutional)
- Jones v. Cheney, 253 Ark. 926 (1973) (legislature may not impair vested retirement rights by later legislation)
- Gravett v. Villines, 314 Ark. 320 (1993) (legislature/quorum court cannot indirectly accomplish what constitution prohibits directly)
- Allred v. McLoud, 343 Ark. 35 (2000) (local term limits adding qualifications held unconstitutional)
- Rubino v. Ghezzi, 512 F.2d 431 (2d Cir. 1975) (upholding age-based judicial retirement as reasonable means to encourage turnover and maintain fitness)
- Malmed v. Thornburgh, 621 F.2d 565 (3d Cir. 1980) (upholding mandatory retirement for judges under rational-basis review)
- Lerner v. Corbett, 972 F. Supp. 2d 676 (M.D. Pa. 2013) (upholding mandatory judicial-retirement provision; reasoning on institutional interests)