Snyder v. City of Chicago
1:15-cv-01160
N.D. Ill.Jun 23, 2017Background
- Snyder, a CFD paramedic hired in 2006 at age 32, passed a 2006 Firefighter/EMT written exam and was placed on a random eligibility list and a cross-over list reserved for current City paramedics.
- Chicago Municipal Code § 2-152-410 sets a maximum hiring age of 38 for initial appointment as a firefighter or firefighter/EMT; Snyder turned 40 before the first class he could have entered (March 2014) and was not invited to the academy.
- Snyder filed administrative charges and then sued under the ADEA, claiming the City’s refusal to allow him cross-over training was age discrimination and a subterfuge that falls outside the ADEA § 623(j) exemption for firefighter hiring limits.
- The City moved for summary judgment, arguing § 2-152-410 is a bona fide hiring plan permitted by the ADEA exemption and applies to cross-overs as well as new hires.
- The court found no evidence of subterfuge or that the City applied the ordinance inconsistently; Deputy Fire Commissioner Stewart testified the department applies the age limit to all candidates seeking firefighting positions.
- Court granted summary judgment for the City: Snyder failed to show the ordinance was a subterfuge or that the City’s refusal was not pursuant to a bona fide hiring plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2-152-410’s age cap can be applied to cross-over candidates | Snyder: Age cap applies only to "initial appointment" new hires, not to existing employees crossing over; applying it to him is a subterfuge | City: Ordinance applies to any candidate seeking a first-time appointment to firefighting duties, including cross-overs; it is a bona fide plan under ADEA § 623(j) | Court: Age cap validly applies to cross-overs; Snyder failed to show subterfuge; summary judgment for City |
| Whether the City’s action was a "failure or refusal to hire" outside the § 623(j) exemption | Snyder: Because he was already employed, the City’s action wasn’t a "failure to hire" protected by the exemption | City: Regardless of label, the decision was an age-based hiring limitation authorized by § 623(j) and made pursuant to a bona fide plan | Court: Snyder offered no viable alternative theory of unlawful age discrimination; claim fails |
| Whether factual evidence shows inconsistent application (i.e., not "pursuant to" a bona fide plan) | Snyder: Alleged distinctions in ranks, probation status, and titles show ordinance shouldn’t apply to him | City: Department policy applies age restriction equally; no evidence of exceptions | Court: Record shows consistent application; no evidence to support a Davis-style "not pursuant to" claim |
| Whether fine-grained rank distinctions defeat the ordinance’s coverage | Snyder: Different titles (FF/PM vs Firefighter/EMT) show ordinance doesn’t fit his situation | City: Ordinance intended to cover broad categories of firefighting roles; not meant to parse internal rank nuances | Court: Ordinance reasonably construed to cover incoming firefighter/paramedic roles; distinctions don’t show subterfuge |
Key Cases Cited
- Minch v. City of Chicago, 363 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding Chicago’s age-limit ordinance under ADEA exemption and defining "subterfuge" standard)
- Davis v. Indiana State Police, 541 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2008) (section 623(j)(2) requires that action be taken "pursuant to" a bona fide plan; inconsistent application can defeat exemption)
- People v. Marshall, 950 N.E.2d 668 (Ill. 2011) (statutory construction principles: read ordinance as whole and give effect to legislative intent)