Vance, Secretary of State, et al. v. Bradley et al.
440 U.S. 93 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory classification based on age does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Age is not a suspect classification, and thus, such laws are subject only to rational basis review.
Facts:
- Congress established a separate personnel and retirement system for the Foreign Service, distinct from the general Civil Service system.
- Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 mandated retirement at age 60 for participants in the Foreign Service retirement system.
- The Foreign Service retirement system covers Foreign Service officers and certain career employees of the State Department, International Communication Agency, and Agency for International Development.
- At the time the suit was filed, personnel covered by the general Civil Service retirement system were not required to retire until age 70, and that requirement was later eliminated entirely.
- Homer E. Bradley and a group of other former and present Foreign Service employees were subject to the mandatory age 60 retirement rule.
- Members of the Foreign Service are required to serve a substantial portion of their careers overseas, often under difficult and hazardous conditions, and must be available for such assignments at any time.
- In contrast, only a small percentage of Civil Service employees serve overseas, and for them, such service is largely a voluntary matter.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of former and present Foreign Service employees (appellees) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Secretary of State.
- The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory retirement provision under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the constitutional claim.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the statutory distinction between Foreign Service and Civil Service employees was invalid.
- The government (appellants) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, which requires federal employees in the Foreign Service retirement system to retire at age 60, violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by treating them differently from employees in the Civil Service retirement system who are not subject to a mandatory retirement age?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The statute withstands rational basis review because the mandatory retirement age is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. Congress has two primary objectives: first, to create predictable promotion opportunities to stimulate morale and superior performance in the unique, rank-based structure of the Foreign Service, and second, to ensure a corps of public servants who are mentally and physically reliable for the rigors of overseas duty. The Court found it rational for Congress to conclude that the demands on Foreign Service personnel, who must be ready for difficult assignments worldwide, justify a more stringent retirement policy than that for Civil Service employees, whose overseas service is less frequent and largely voluntary. The classification does not need to be perfectly tailored to its objectives; it is permissible even if somewhat overinclusive and underinclusive.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, Section 632 of the Foreign Service Act violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Mandatory retirement provisions based on age should be subject to a heightened level of judicial scrutiny—intermediate scrutiny—because they affect an individual's important interest in employment and are often based on inaccurate stereotypes about the elderly. Under this standard, the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that the age-60 requirement is substantially related to its objectives. The government offered no proof that older employees are less competent, and its 'promotion opportunity' rationale is based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Furthermore, the existence of individualized performance reviews and medical examinations within the Foreign Service provides a more precise and less discriminatory means of ensuring employee competence, making a blanket mandatory retirement age unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the highly deferential rational basis test to age-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause, following the precedent set in Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia. The decision reinforces that age is not a suspect class, and courts will not second-guess a legislative judgment regarding age and job fitness as long as a conceivable rational link to a legitimate state interest exists. The ruling grants Congress broad authority to design distinct personnel systems for different government branches, particularly in sensitive areas like foreign affairs. This makes it exceptionally difficult to constitutionally challenge mandatory retirement laws on equal protection grounds, shifting the focus of such challenges to statutory frameworks like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Unlock the full brief for Vance, Secretary of State, et al. v. Bradley et al.