I would like to begin by agreeing with the assertion that the Indiana’s policy of not rehiring officers over the age of forty in violation of Age Discrimination of Employment Act (ADEA). In this regard, Davis is justified to take a legal action against the alleged treatment from Indian State Police. As an officer, his fate should not have been pegged on his age. It is true that the policy of limiting the preference age for rehiring to the police force is discriminatory. It is a direct violation of ADEA which advocates for the rights of the ageing American population (Greenhouse, L., 2008).
ADEA prohibits any form of discrimination based on age. Therefore, no one should be laid-off, fired or compelled to retire based on his age. No employer is allowed to display any form of discrimination to the workers. Therefore, Davis is right for filing a suit against his employer. He is only 42 years of age and should not be denied a job opportunity. The limitation of the rehiring age to a specific age is contrary to this act. Instead, the police department should allow anyone who is qualified to be rehired whenever there is a need (Ralph, D., 2005).
Conclusively, I would like to agree with Davis’ decision. The conduct of the Indiana Police Department violates ADEA. Compulsory retirement is only recommended for the executives over the age of 65. Davis is still young. Instead of punishing him, he should be appreciated for his services to the state. The police department should not use such policies to bar people from pursuing their careers. They are very unfair and should be amended for the benefit of all the citizens. Law was made for man, but not contrary.
References
Greenhouse, L. (2008). "A Supreme Court Victory for Older Workers" New York: New York
Times.
Ralph, D (2005). Indiana History: A Book of Readings. Indiana University Press.
