Miller v. Clinton
750 F. Supp. 2d 11
D.D.C.2010Background
- Miller, a U.S. citizen, worked for the Department of State as a safety inspector at the U.S. Embassy in Paris.
- He was terminated on July 23, 2007, purportedly because he would turn 65 on that date.
- The Local Compensation Plan for Paris embedded a Retirement clause setting 65 as the mandatory age.
- Miller alleged the termination violated the ADEA and sought compensatory damages, reinstatement, back pay, and fees.
- The Department of State moved to dismiss the claim, arguing ADEA applicability and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for damages; Miller cross-moved for summary judgment as to liability.
- The court granted the State Department’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and denied all others as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2(c) makes Miller an employee for purposes of the ADEA | Miller argues 2(c)’s non-employee status for OPM laws implies ADEA coverage | 2(c) does not render Miller an employee for non-OPM laws like the ADEA | 2(c) does not make Miller an ADEA-covered employee |
| Whether the Secretary had authority to apply a mandatory retirement age to Miller | Argues 2(c) does not permit applying 408 to Miller's contract | 2(c) second clause and third clause authorize applying 408 and exempt from ADEA | Yes, defendant had authority to impose 65 as retirement age under §2(c) and §408 |
| Whether the ADEA claim is barred by sovereign immunity for damages | (Not explicitly argued as separate issue in the excerpt) | (Not explicitly argued as separate issue in the excerpt) | Dismissal on the merits of the ADEA claim; sovereign immunity issue addressed only in context of damages (court dismisses on failure to state a claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bowen, 100 U.S. 508 (1879) (interpretation of 'such' referring to antecedent phrase not fixed rule)
- Stewart v. Smith, 673 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (agency to set maximum ages for law enforcement under authorized statute)
- Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (interpretation ensuring no provision rendered superfluous)