9. That the Congressionally stated public policy underlying the passage of said Amendatory Act of 1978, summarized as follows:
(a) That mandatory retirement based solely upon age is arbitrary and that chronological age alone is a poor indicator of ability to perform a job;
(b) Mandatory retirement does not take into consideration actual differing abilities and capacities of workers;
(c) Forced retirement can cause hardships for older persons through loss of roles and loss of income;
(d) Older persons who wish to be re-employed have a much more difficult time in finding a new job than younger persons;
(e) Society as a whole suffers from mandatory retirement;
(i) Because as a result of mandatory retirement, skills and experience are lost from the work-force resulting in a reduced Gross National Product;
(ii) Mandatory retirement adds a burden to Government Income Maintenance Programs, such as Social Security;
(f) There is a strong evidence to support the proposition that mandatory retirement decreases the life expectancy of persons who are forced into retirement and that The right to work as long as one can work is basic to the right to survive; (underlining supplied)
(g) That reducing mandatory retirement will not worsen the unemployment problem;
(h) That the concept of mandatory retirement only after age 70 will have little effect on recruiting younger people for the work-force;
(i) That increasing the mandatory retirement age to 70 will not prevent job opportunities for minorities and women since employed minorities and women must also grow old;
(j) Mandatory retirement is not a proper method for ridding the work-force of incompetent and/or unproductive workers;
(k) As for job performance, research indicates that older workers were good or better than their younger co-workers with regard to dependability, judgment, work quality, work volume, human relations, absenteeism, and further, older workers were found to have fewer accidents on the job;
10. That School District has a policy relating to retirement stated as follows:
"All employees Must retire upon reaching age 65, except that any such employee may complete the school year in which he attains 65 years. Said school year to terminate on June 30". (underlining supplied)
Further, the avowed objective of this mandatory retirement policy of the School District (as well as all of the other School District Administrative and fiscal policies) is to provide the school children of the District the "best education at the most affordable cost." (See Record Page 150 at lines 14 through 18, inclusive; and See again Record Page 189 at lines 21 through 24, inclusive.
11. That Kuhar's contract with the School District makes no reference to said retirement policy, but insures Kuhar the right to and/or opportunity to a hearing if Kuhar requests the same after being notified of his pending termination of employment by a written official termination notice, which notice must be presented to the Professional Employee.
12. That, to date, Kuhar has not been presented with a "termination notice" as required by the contract and by state law. However, the School District, admittedly acting through its Superintendent, by letter dated April 24, 1978, has advised Kuhar's attorney that the School District definitely intended to enforce the mandatory retirement at age 65 policy against Kuhar who has heretofore attained age 65, without advising him that he has a right to an administrative hearing.
13. That it is a fact that the School District is admittedly determined to terminate Kuhar arbitrarily without a hearing, and as a matter of course, and in keeping with its announced policy of mandatory retirement of all employees at age 65.
14. Admittedly, the School District seeks to terminate the employment of Kuhar for no reason other than the fact that the Plaintiff Kuhar has reached the mandatory retirement age of 65 inasmuch as the said retirement policy is established and enforced by the Defendant School District.
15. Admittedly, the School District has advertised for applicants to apply for Kuhar's position with the School District, and said School District has in fact accepted some thirty (30) applications (more or less) from parties who work for the School District and from parties who are employed by School Districts other than Defendant.
16. That the School District Board had intended to meet on June 20, 1978, and had intended to select a person to replace Kuhar as Assistant Principal of the Greensburg-Salem Junior High School.
17. That Kuhar's continued employment in the School District is clearly and specifically threatened by the action of the School District acting through its Board and Superintendent.
18. That the mandatory retirement age for public school employees, such as Kuhar, has been set by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at age 70, and this Court finds as a fact that the mandatory retirement at age 65 policy of the School District goes a step further than the Pennsylvania School Code, which code mandates retirement only at age 70. (See 24 P.S. § 11-1122).
19. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that a presently productive and competent person, such as Kuhar, who is placed in compulsory retirement, is very likely to suffer a severe irreparable physical and psychological harm which will shorten his life expectancy.
See Per Curiam opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts Board of Retirement vs. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 316-317, 96 S. Ct. 2562, 49 L. Ed. 2d 520 (1976), and Dissenting opinion, pages 323-325, 96 S. Ct. pages 2569-2574.
See the report of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Education and Labor, the full text of which is part of this record as Defendant's Exhibit "G".