Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
EEOC v. County of Los Angeles
Citations: 531 F. Supp. 122; 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11689; 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,808; 28 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1067Docket: Civ. A. No. 78-2522-LTL
Court: District Court, C.D. California; January 29, 1982; Federal District Court
Defendant County of Los Angeles filed a motion for a stay of an injunction pending appeal, which restrains it from limiting employment for Entry Level Deputy Sheriff and Helicopter Pilot positions to individuals under thirty-five years of age. This injunction was issued based on the court's determination that the defendant's hiring policy violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). To obtain a stay, the defendant must demonstrate: (1) a strong likelihood of success on appeal, (2) irreparable injury without the stay, (3) that no substantial harm will come to other parties, and (4) that the stay will not harm the public interest. The court noted that stays of ADEA injunctions are uncommon and addressed the defendant's constitutional argument against the application of the ADEA to states, concluding that this argument lacks support as the majority of authority favors ADEA applicability. The defendant's claim that federal age restrictions establish age as a bona fide occupational qualification was dismissed, as Congress has not mandated these restrictions. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that economic impacts justify age discrimination, reinforcing that age cannot be a bona fide occupational qualification for the positions in question. The court reviewed the defendant's claim regarding a stay of an injunction, noting that the defendant did not specify the basis for this claim. Substantial expert testimony indicated that age does not hinder adequate job performance. The court expressed skepticism about the defendant's ability to prove that the finding of fact was clearly erroneous upon appeal. The defendant argued that failing to stay the injunction would result in irreparable injury but provided no evidence of individuals over thirty-five seeking employment for the contested positions, rendering the claim speculative. Even if the injunction were lifted, the court stated it would not necessarily lead to irreparable injury since new hires must still be qualified. The court considered the potential harm to other parties, concluding that staying the injunction would deny individuals over thirty-five the protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), constituting a real injury. Citing relevant case law, the court noted that violations of statutory civil rights lead to presumed irreparable harm. Consequently, the court denied the defendant's motion for a stay, framing it as contrary to public interest and likely to harm those seeking employment in the affected jobs. The motion for a stay of the injunction issued on December 21, 1981, is denied.