In 2012, a New Jersey jury issued a verdict in an agediscrimination suit filed against Passaic County prosecutor JamesAvigliano. Six detectives with a total of 150 years of lawenforcement between them were laid off by Avigliano’s office duringa time of significant budget cuts in 2008. The detectives allegedthat Avigliano had targeted them for forced retirement because oftheir age. As older, longtime employees, the six had significantpensions. The defense argued that the detectives’ pensions were areason- able basis for requiring their early retirement. “[I]t hadnothing to do with age,” the defense attorney told the jury.“Avigliano had to make a hard choice—a choice he didn’t want tomake. He asked these guys to retire. They had benefits packages.”Given the extent of the necessary budget cuts, by laying offlongtime employees with medical benefits and pensions, the defenseargued, “fewer employees would have to be let go, and they’d have asafe landing.” The plaintiffs’ lawyer contended that targetingpeople for layoffs because they have pensions to fall back on isitself discriminatory, according to state discrimination statutes.In addition, such targeting is bad public policy.
“What incentive is there, then, to pay your dues?” theplaintiff’s attorney asked the jury. “We want the most experiencedpeople on the streets.” How would you decide the case, if you wereon this jury? What is your own judgment of Avigliano’s “hardchoice?” Do you view his rationale for laying off older workers as“bad public policy” or the least harmful choice in light ofeconomic pressures?
