Justices press both sides in Mount Lemmon Fire District age-bias case

WASHINGTON — An eight-member Supreme Court quizzed both sides this week in an Arizona case that asks whether small government agencies should be exempt from age discrimination laws, just as small businesses are.

A lower court said they should not, that a government agency of any size should be subject to the law — a ruling that would be “financially crippling” for cash-strapped agencies if allowed to stand, said one advocate challenging the ruling.

The case began in 2009, when the Mount Lemmon Fire District laid off Capts. John Guido and Dennis Rankin, who happened to be the two oldest firefighters in the department at the time. They filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, citing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

But the Fire District argued in court that Guido, 46 at the time of the layoff, and Rankin, then 54, were let go not for their age but because they had not participated in volunteer wildland assignments.

The Fire District went on to argue that the age discrimination law should not apply to it because it had 13 employees at the time of the layoffs, well below the 20-worker threshold under which a private firm is exempt from the law.

A district court agreed with the Fire District. But a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in June 2017, a ruling at odds with four other circuit courts.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

That sparked the appeal that led to Monday’s arguments before the Supreme Court.

Guido and Rankin “believed that the definition of employer does not require any particular number of employees in order to cover government entities such as Mount Lemmon Fire District,” said Don Awerkamp, one of the attorneys representing them.

The Age Discrimination in Employment statute defines employer as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees for each working day.” It goes on to say that employer “also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State and any agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State.”

Joshua Rosenkranz, an attorney for the fire agency, argued Monday that the word “also” in the law could be defined as “in addition,” as well as possibly meaning “further elaboration of the preceding definition, along the lines of ‘moreover’ or ‘incorporates.’”

That line of reasoning did not appear to sway Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“If we take the best dictionary definition, ‘in addition to,’ the normal meaning, do you lose or do you have some other available argument?” Gorsuch asked. “I’d be delighted to hear it if you do.”