Lerner v. Corbett
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136832
| M.D. Penn. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs are Pennsylvania state court judges challenging Article V, §16(b) retirement at age 70 as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Section 16(b) requires retirement on December 31 of the year the judge turns 70; retired jurists may serve as senior judges with per diem pay.
- The provision stemmed from 1967-68 constitutional convention and was amended in 2001; justices/judges have fixed ten-year terms (six for some officials).
- Plaintiffs filed in Commonwealth Court; Defendants removed to federal court; the court stayed briefly pending state proceedings before resuming briefing.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently decided Driscoll v. Corbett in the plaintiffs’ favor on state constitutional issues, prompting the federal court to proceed with the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal briefing.
- The court ultimately grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection standard for age-based retirement | Plaintiffs seek intermediate scrutiny based on age class | Age classifications trigger rational basis review | Rational basis review applies; provision upheld |
| Whether Windsor changed the applicable equal protection framework | Windsor requires weighing legitimate and improper purposes | Windsor does not alter established rational basis approach | Windsor does not undermine rational basis analysis here |
| Right to work and due process implications | Plaintiffs allege loss of property/entitlement to continued employment | State constitution precludes entitlement beyond 70 | No protected property interest; due process not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) (upheld age-based retirement against equal protection challenge)
- Maimed v. Thornburgh, 621 F.2d 565 (3d Cir. 1980) (upheld Pennsylvania retirement provision as rationally related to legitimate aims)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (illustrates rational basis review for classifications)
- Windsor v. United States, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (no legitimate purpose overcomes stigma; application of rational basis standards discussed)
- Driscoll v. Corbett, 69 A.3d 197 (Pa. 2013) (state constitutional interpretation guidance on retirement age)
- Murgia v. Board of Trustees, 427 U.S. 307 (1976) (no fundamental right to public employment; age classifications subject to rational basis)