Such standards, based on factors other than age, would provide a greater degree of safety and efficiency than would any standard based solely on age.
12. The United States Government has no requirement that would preclude hiring and employment by the United States in job classifications having duties similar to that of Security Officer I of persons between the ages of 40 and 65.
13. The City of Philadelphia's maximum age requirement of 41 years for initial hiring and employment on a Security Officer I is not a bona fide occupational qualification, and it is not reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the city government or any of its departments or agencies.
14. Luis A. Rodriguez has complied with all statutory and administrative requirements prerequisite to filing and maintaining this action.
15. The last examination for Security Officer I was conducted by the City of Philadelphia on or about February 27, 1975, and the first person hired as a Security Officer I by the City of Philadelphia subsequent to the rejection of the application of Luis A. Rodriguez was June 2, 1975. Additional persons have been employed as Security Officer I subsequent to June 2, 1975.
16. The salary of a Security Officer I commences at $11,275.00, and the maximum for such position is $12,303.00.
Conclusions of Law
1. The court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties, and venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
2. The City of Philadelphia, by its policy of rejecting applications, refusing to permit applicants to take the competitive examinations, and refusing to hire any person over the age of 41 years as a Security Officer I violates section 4(a)(1) of the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act," Act of December 15, 1967, Pub. L. 90-202, 81 Stat. 603, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).
3. The requirement that an applicant for the position of Security Officer I be under the age of 41 years is not a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the city government.
4. The City of Philadelphia refused to hire and otherwise discriminated against Luis A. Rodriguez individually and the plaintiff class in respect to employment as a Security Officer I because of the age of Luis A. Rodriguez individually and the age of all members of the plaintiff class in violation of section 4(a)(1) of the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act," Act of December 15, 1967, Pub. L. 90-202, 81 Stat. 603, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).
5. The plaintiff class and Luis A. Rodriguez individually are entitled to injunctive relief.
6. Luis A. Rodriguez is entitled to an award in accordance with section 7(b) of the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act," Act of December 15, 1967, Pub. L. 90-202, 81 Stat. 603, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b). The amount owing as a result of the violation is deemed to be the unpaid minimum wage of $11,275 per annum calculated from June 2, 1975 (the date the first person was hired for the job subsequent to rejection of the application of Luis A. Rodriguez), to August 12, 1976 (the date of the entry of the award by oral order of the court).
7. The violation of the Act by the City of Philadelphia was willful.
8. Luis A. Rodriguez is entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to the award of the unpaid minimum wage.
9. Luis A. Rodriguez, having proved the violation, is not required to prove that "but for" the violation he would have been hired in order to be entitled to an award of money both as an "amount owing" to him and as liquidated damages.
Supplemental Final Order
And Now, this 2nd day of September, in accordance with findings of fact, conclusions of law, decision and order of the court entered orally in open court on August 12, 1976 at the conclusion of the trial on the merits, and as supplemented by written findings of fact and conclusions of law to be filed herewith, it is Ordered and Decreed as follows:
1. The refusal of the City of Philadelphia to hire anyone as Security Officer I who is 41 years of age or older, and to reject all applications for such position by such persons on account of the age of such applicants, and to prohibit such applicants from taking the competitive examination for such positions because of the age of such persons, violates the express provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), being section 4(a)(1) of the Act of December 15, 1967, Pub. L. 90-202, 81 Stat. 603, commonly called the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act."
2. The City of Philadelphia and the individual defendants jointly and severally and in their official capacities are permanently restrained and enjoined from henceforth rejecting any application and/or prohibiting any applicant from taking the required competitive examination for the position of Security Officer I with the City of Philadelphia because of the age of any such applicant who is at least 40 years old and less than 65 years old. This shall not prevent establishment of bona fide job related physical and mental qualifications and tests based on standards other than age, nor prevent age qualifications wherein the minimum age is less than 40 years and the maximum age is 65 years or older.