*1 HAWKINS, Fleig, Ralph Lewis Richard
Olson, Bowman, and Vernon R. all Indi
viduals, on behalf of themselves and all situated, similarly Plaintiffs-Ap
others
pellants, Blickensderfer, Erickson,
Glen Gurton C. Kies, Seuferer,
H. Cliff T. Wilfred A.
Postel, Henry Chap Glen R. Deal and
man, Intervenors-Appellants, PREISSER,
Victor Director of State De
partment Transportation, and H. E.
Gunnerson, Director, Division, Highway
Appellees.
No. 59855.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
March Allen, Legal Director,
Gordon E. Union, Moines, Civil Liberties Des ap- for pellants. Turner, Gen.,
Richard Atty. C. Asher E. Goodwin, Schroeder and Robert W. Sp. Gen., Attys. Asst. appellees. REES, Justice.
This
appeal
is an
by plaintiffs and inter-
venors, all employees of the Highway Divi-
*2
fendants,
Department
of the
of Transporta-
sion
alleging among
grounds
other
tion,
ruling
from
of the trial
that
court
that the unwritten rule at that time and the
97B.46,
Code, 1975, per-
The
97B.45 and
subsequent
§§
written rule insofar as it was
mitting
each state
to establish its
applied to the plaintiffs, was in violation of
policy,
patently
ar-
own retirement
not
the equal protection provisions of amend-
bitrary
relationship
and bear a rational
to a ments
and5
the
of
United States Consti-
As
legitimate governmental interest.
1,
tution and of Article
sections 1 and 6 of
reach the same conclusions as the trial
the
Iowa,
of
Constitution
in that the opera-
court, we affirm.
tion of
97B.46,
Code,
§§
and
The
1975 made the
of plaintiffs’
likelihood
con-
Department
Transportation
The Iowa
of
tinued employment
the
entirely
State
1975,
1,
entity
pur-
on
legal
July
became
dependent upon the identity of
depart-
the
to
of
Assembly.
suant Acts
the 65th General
ment of state government for which a state
date,
On the same
the Iowa
Highway
State
worked,
employee
as
departments reg-
some
as a separate
Commission ceased to exist
ularly granted extensions of employment
legal entity and became one of the seven
beyond age
The
65.
trial court ordered the
of
Department
Transporta-
divisions of the
issuance of a
of
injunction
writ
temporary
tion, namely,
Highway
the
Division. The
prohibiting the termination of the employ-
plaintiffs and
at
intervenors were
all times
plaintiffs
ment of
pending hearing on the
material to this case
of
the Iowa
merits of the cause. The intervenors filed
Highway
July 1,
Commissionprior
State
to
their petition in
intervention on February
subsequent
and
thereto employees of
1976,alleging the same grounds as set forth
Highway
Department
the
of
Division
the
of
plaintiffs’ petition
and
February
Transportation. At the time of the institu-
trial court entered its order
action,
plaintiffs
of
tion
all
and
permitting the intervention of the interve-
aged
years.
were
65 to 69
intervenors
ordering
nors and
injunction
a temporary
existed,
1,1975
prior
July
it
to
as
When
against their separation from the
entity, the Iowa
separate
Highway
State
the Department until trial on the merits.
developed policy fixing
Commission had a
Following
merits,
trial on the
the trial
age
at
the retirement
findings
fact,
court filed its
conclusions
years,
upon application
but
of an individual
of law and decree in which it found and
Commission,
fit,
employee the
if it saw
held defendants had failed to establish the
granted
employment beyond
extensions of
invalidity of
97B.46,
97B.45 and
§§
The
65.
Code,
quashed
and
temporary
injunc-
early
Department
1976 the
of Trans-
appeal
tion. This
ensued.
rule,
portation adopted a written
effective
Only one issue is before us for determina-
March
65 as the manda-
tion, namely, whether the trial court was
tory
eliminating
in concluding
correct
97B.45 and
possibility
of further extensions
Code,
97B.46, The
do
deny equal
not
age.
The written rule was the out-
protection, although each state agency is
growth
change
of a
in policy developed by
allowed
establish its own
poli-
Department
Transportation
prior
plaintiffs’
cies and
continuing
likelihood of
rule,
implementation
to the actual
employment with the
according
State varies
Preisser,
defendant
in his
as
capacity
di-
department
government by
of state
Transporta-
rector
employed.
were
tion,
no
announced that
further extensions
granted,
under
old
were to be
statutory
I.
which are in-
effectively mandating
per-
retirement of all
are,
appeal
volved in this
as above men-
at
65.
sonnel
tioned,
97B.45 and
provides
Section 97B.45
as follows:
July
On
instituted this
by filing petition
temporary
action
sixty-five.
“Retirement
at
A
injunctive
permanent
against
relief
the de-
member’s normal retirement date shall be
coinciding
basis,
with or
payments
month
retroactive
shall be made
first
sixty-fifth birthday.
his
following
next
for no more than six months immediately
Employ-
the Iowa Public
A member
preceding the month in which the written
[of
may retire after
System]
Retirement
ees’
notice is submitted.”
birthday except as other-
sixty-fifth
his
II. Plaintiffs
argue
and intervenors
97B.46. A mem-
provided in section
wise
operation
*3
retirement
retiring after his normal
ber
equal protection
denies them
of the
97B.46,
date,
shall
provided
as
in section
permit agencies
law since said statutes
and
notice to the commission
submit a written
departments
government
of state
to set in-
Security
Employment
Commission]
[Iowa
ages
dividual retirement
of their employees
the
the retirement
setting forth
date
in
They
excess of
65.
contend this
effective,
that such
provided
date
agencies
discretion results in the
and de-
day
and
shall
after his last
of service
partments
government
of state
having dif-
day
the first
of the sixth cal-
not before
fering
ages
though
retirement
even
many
in
preceding
month
the month
endar
job
functions
descriptions
and
are identical.
filed,
is
except
which the notice
that cred-
Since the
of Iowa is the
State
ultimate
shall cease when contribu-
it for service
employer, plaintiffs and intervenors con-
provided
cease as
in section 97B.11.
tions
tend that permitting
ages
retirement
to be
“Notwithstanding
provisions
the
of this
by
separate
determined
the
agency with
97B.46,
employer
and section
section
resultant
policies
different
for
retire-
may adopt policies
prescribe
agency
each
makes the statute unreason-
sixty-five
not less than
ment at
able, arbitrary
capricious,
and
and the liter-
years.
al
enforcement thereof denies
and
of this section shall not
“The
equal protection
intervenors
of the law.
any provi-
to render invalid
be construed
hand,
On the other
the defendants con-
an em-
policy
sions of a
established
placing
power
tend that
the
in individual
prescribes retirement at an
ployer which
ages
to set retirement
in excess of
sixty-five
years.”
not less than
and,
therefore,
is not unreasonable
97B.46, pro-
disputed
The other
section §
deny plaintiffs
does not
and intervenors
vides:
equal protection since there is a rational
age sixty-five.
after
A mem-
“Service
basis for the
classification of
may, on the request
employer,
ber
separate
the
age poli-
employ
remain in the active
of the em-
according
cies
to the agency for which each
ployer beyond
the date he
the
attains
employee works. Defendants contend there
sixty-five
period
periods
for such
or
as
is a rational basis for
statute’s classifi-
employer
from time to time shall
cation since the statute
each indi-
provided, however,
approve,
that credit
agency
vidual
to determine its own retire-
such service shall
for
cease when contri-
policy
ment
in accordance with its own
provided
cease as
in section
butions
needs,
budget,
in relation to its
composi-
shall retire from
97B.11.
member
force,
tion of
requirement
its labor
and its
employer
at the
for employees
particular
skills and expe-
approved period,
of the last
on the
end
exemplify
rience. To
the claimed rational
day
following
first
month next
basis,
point
defendants
to the situation in
coinciding with such date. A member
case;
present
of Trans-
remaining
past
his seventy-
portation
its Highway
Division felt the
birthday shall be
re-
second
entitled to
need to reduce its work force as a result of
ceive a retirement allowance under sub-
budgetary
sought
limitations and
to reduce
sections 2 and 3 of section 97B.49 com-
the force
by employing
attrition
mencing
for the calendar
strict-
er retirement
to accomplish
month within which the written notice is
such an
commission, except
submitted to the
end. Defendants also made reference to
timely
if he fails to submit the notice on a
composition of the work force
agen-
of each
cetera,
skills,
as
prove beyond
et
cy,
experience,
reasonable
doubt
each
permitting
basis for
statute
equal protection
a rational
violates
concepts,
policy.
its own retirement
pass
to determine
do not
upon the wisdom of the
the rationale ad-
accepted
trial court
statute. City
Selden,
Waterloo v.
findings
(Iowa
defendants in its
1977).
vanced
In order to
law,
fact,
and decree.
prove
conclusions
equal
statute violates
protection a
plaintiff must show there is no reasonable
determining
whether
III.
basis
the classification in the statute.
and intervenors carried
bur
Porter,
Dickinson
399-400,
proving
97B.45 and
den
35 N.W.2d
them,
Code, deny
protection to
equal
scrutiny or
we must decide whether strict
IV. We
here,
must
determine
rationality
proper
standard to test the
light
viewed in
standards,
of the foregoing
validity
scrutiny
of the statute.
Strict
whether
which per
*4
only
right
when fundamental
employed
agencies
a
mit
to set their own retirement
suspect
ages
65,
class is involved. Massachusetts
in
a
excess of
permit an unrea
Murgia,
of Retirement v.
427 U.S.
arbitrary
Board
sonable and
classification with no
2566,
520,
307, 312,
2562,
96
49 L.Ed.2d
rational relationship
S.Ct.
to a legitimate govern
(1976); Lunday
Vogelmann,
v.
213 mental
524
interest.
904,
(Iowa 1973).
right
907
to
purpose
chapter
97B which estab-
employed by
governmental agency
public
lished the Iowa
employees retirement
right.
Massachusetts
not
fundamental
system was
enunciated
the legislature in
427
at
Murgia,
of Retirement v.
Board
U.S.
provides:
§
which
2566, 49
at
L.Ed.2d at 524.
S.Ct.
“The purpose of this chapter
pro-
Further,
classification
the method of
based
economy
mote
and efficiency
pub-
in the
agency’s
an
determination
independent
on
by providing
lic service
means
classification,
though
suspect
is not a
even
whereby employees who
super-
age.
partially
such classification
based
may,
annuated
without
or preju-
Board Retirement v. Mur
Massachusetts
dice, be replaced by
capable
more
employ-
at
gia, 427
at
S.Ct.
U.S.
ees,
and to that end
a retire-
524;
Lunday
Vogelmann,
at
see
L.Ed.2d
v.
ment system
provide
which will
for the
In applying equal specifically the traditional 97B.45 and 97B.46 is a §§ test, it been that protection legitimate said a stat state interest since it concerns constitutionally public are, therefore, ute will be ruled invalid employment. We not hold, ‘patently arbitrary’ hold, “unless it is and bears constrained to and do relationship legitimate gov rational to a rationally no 97B.45 and 97B.46 are related purpose ernmental interest.” Frontiero Richard set the statute out in son, 1764, 1768, S.Ct. arbitrary. U.S. not Plaintiffs § (1973); Lunday 36 L.Ed.2d v. Vo and intervenors claim 97B.46 permits dif- § at 907. have also gelmann, 213 N.W.2d We ferent state to establish dissimilar test, application in the of such a ages job said retirement of presumption statute has the of constitu classifications are similar from de- upon to tionality, partment department the burden is the attacker to such situ- unreasonably against I, 6, discriminates tution ation or Article Constitution is affected an earlier employee who of Iowa. However, statutory such age. We therefore affirm the trial court. to set its own provision allows AFFIRMED. policy pe- in accordance with its budgetary needs and re- culiar All Justices concur except HARRIS and flexibility is demonstrat- quirements. Such UHLENHOPP, JJ., who dissent. present Depart- ed in the case when the Transportation changed policy ment of HARRIS, Justice (dissenting). allowing a few to work I respectfully dissent agree because I interests of 65 if the best that the defendant’s retire- thereby were served to a ment policy denies them equal protec- mandatory retirement at 65 with no guaranteed tion of laws as by the Fifth and exceptions budgetary in order to meet limi- Fourteenth Amendments to the United avoiding layoff younger tations while I, States Constitution and Art. 1 and 6 of employees whose skilled service to the De- Iowa Constitution. partment longer pe- would continue over a riod of time. In other circumstances an The two Code sections agency might properly set its retirement 97B.46 are quoted in the majority opinion. age policy at an older than 65 in order The first of these grants sections authority key employees to meet the to retain work adopt policies prescribing retirement Further, agency. of that demands as the ages of not less designated than the “nor- *5 out, point flexibility pol- defendants such mal retirement” of 65. Section 97B.46 icy agency to determine a grants authority to allow continued employ- age in accordance with the com- ment on a case case basis the age case, position any of its work force. In it is thus fixed. Pursuant to the plain- “promotes clear 97B.45 and 97B.46 econ- tiffs, employed by when the former Iowa omy efficiency public service”, in the Highway Commission, apply could to have and, therefore, provisions the statute of employment their continued after the age which in effect enable individual 65. Under the challenged that age policies beyond to determine retirement right application longer is no available. years, rationally of 65 are related to application I believe the rights were not interest,' legitimate provi- state and such any withdrawn on criteria which has a ra- sions are neither arbitrary unreasonable nor tional basis. in and of themselves. The relation regulatory distinctions to conclude, therefore, We provisions such the statutes under they promul which equal protection are not violative of gated explained Burns, was in Hein v. 402 laws under either the federal or state con- F.Supp. (S.D.Iowa 1975): 398 provisions stitution since the equal pro- “Regulatory distinctions must be based tection in City both are similar. of Water- on differences that are reasonably related 509; Selden, loo v. 251 N.W.2d at Graham to the of the Act purposes in which those Worthington, 845, 863, v. 259 Iowa 146 differences are Morey found. v. Doud (1957), 457, 465, 354 U.S. 77 S.Ct. sum, conclude and inter- 1485; L.Ed.2d Dandridge v. Williams venors have failed to meet the burden rest- (1970), 471, 485, 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. ing upon negate every them to conceivable 491; Yeager L.Ed.2d Rinaldi v. (1966), 384 might support basis which 1497, 16 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 577. provisions and to demonstrate * * *." 97B.45and 97B.46are violative of the
rights test, and intervenors to Under this question becomes equal protection of the laws under either challenged whether the policy of defend- amendment 14 United Consti- States ants is related to purposes legis- it can from which is derived. We See Faruki v. Rogers, lation F.Supp. (D.D. legisla- purposes of the easily determine the C.1972) Vance, and Bradley v. 436 F.Supp. explains purpose tion. Section (D.D.C.1977). I would reverse. sys- public employees retirement the Iowa tem: UHLENHOPP, J., joins in this dissent. pro- this purpose chapter “The efficiency public economy and in the mote means by providing who
whereby superannu- may, prejudice, without
ated
replaced by capable employees, and to more system a retirement
that end provide will for the of an- The COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL employees, public thereby nuities to enab- ETHICS AND OF CONDUCT the IOWA ling to care for themselves in ASSOCIATION, STATE BAR Complain- retirement, will and which ant, improve employment public within state, personnel reduce excessive turnover high-grade offer suitable attraction to Larry MUNSINGER, Respondent. D. public and women enter service in
men No. 60801. state.” nothing plain- I see in the withdrawal of Supreme Court of Iowa. right tiff’s to be considered for April 19, 1978. any way 65 which relates in past the act. ar- purposes of Defendants stated
gue agency agency retirement
necessary because “each differ- pud tastes, needs, personnel
ent individual budget limitations that it can better
respond to if it is able to establish its own questionable It if policy.” significant advantage
this amounts to a agency. If so retirement would certain-
ly be more if the legislature had
prescribed retirement at state for all allowing exceptions rather than agencies.
for individuals or any argument event defendant’s whol- ignores the
ly needs individuals who retiring, pur-
are whereas the first stated superannuated of the act em-
pose replaced
ployees to be “without hard-
ship prejudice.” says or The statute noth-
ing tasks, agencies’ budgets, about the or
"personnel agency’s challenged needs. The
approach can increase the only retiring
prejudice employees.
I possible exceptions believe the denial of
under not been to be shown §
based on that are reasonably differences to the purposes
related stated in 97B.2.