More than five years after it was first challenged in court, a state law requiring Massachusetts State Police troopers to retire at age 55 has been struck down by a federal judge as discriminatory.
The final ruling yesterday by US District Judge A. David Mazzone - which bars the State Police from forcing retirement on anyone solely based on age - comes after legislators failed to act on a bill that would have replaced the mandatory retirement provision with a fitness requirement.
It also follows the ratification in March of a new State Police contract that requires annual fitness tests for all 2,200 officers, regardless of age.
''I think it's great,'' said Daniel J. Gately, 62, a captain in the State Police staff inspection section in Medford and the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit that initially included 104 officers. ''If you are physically able to do the job, you should be able to do it.''
Gately, who has performed a prototype police fitness test once, said he may work another 10 years. ''I figure 72 is a good age. You never know.''
Curtis L. West, a trooper at the State Police station on Kosciussko Circle in Dorchester, said the ruling was ''a great decision'' that was long overdue.
''When you first come on to the job, you figure you're going to stay on the job till 65,'' West said. ''Now [the decision] gives that person enough time to work while his kid's in college.''
But the decision comes too late for two dozen officers who have retired voluntarily since the lawsuit was filed.
''The basic concept that has motivated this lawsuit is a simple one: That the fitness of an officer and their ability to do their job ought to be the criteria as to whether they are allowed to remain, not their age,'' said attorney James B. Conroy, who represented the State Police officers challenging mandatory retirement.
In a prepared statement, the police department said it must first confer with the state Executive Office of Public Safety and the attorney general's office before deciding whether to appeal. Still, the department remained committed to establishing ''the best physical fitness testing'' for its officers.
Mazzone's ruling was foreshadowed in December 1992 when he blocked the forced retirement of 30 officers. Yesterday, he found that the mandatory retirement age violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prohibits firing someone based on age.
''The defendants' purpose for establishing a mandatory retirement age for MSP officers is a public safety concern of ensuring the physical preparedness and fitness of its officers,'' Mazzone wrote. ''The defendants, however, may not arbitrarily set up 55 years of age as the point at which MSP officers are no longer physically fit to serve on the force.''
The ruling settles a lawsuit filed in December 1992 by former Metropolitan, Registry, and Capitol police challenging the mandatory retirement age of the consolidated State Police.
When the three forces merged with the State Police in July 1992, the mandatory retirement age for the new combined force was set at 55 - five years older than the previous State Police retirement age but 10 years younger than the retirement age for the other forces.
In September 1996, shortly before going to trial, the parties agreed to suspend the proceedings because Governor William F. Weld was set to file a bill that would have permitted troopers to remain on duty after age 55 if they passed a fitness test. The bill has languished since Weld filed it in January 1997.
Mazzone noted that Congress amended the act in 1996. Now, states must compile a list of tasks that all police officers must perform on the job, and develop corresponding fitness tests. By Sept. 30, 2000, nationwide fitness tests must be in place to eliminate age-based mandatory retirement.
The prototype fitness test, described as an indoor obstacle course, mimics the movements an officer would make to chase and subdue a suspect.
Limited testing of 33 officers in November 1995 showed that the best performers in the older age group - 17 officers were 55 or older - performed substantially better than the worst performers among officers under 55, according to the ruling.
Mike Barnicle
Latest regional news
