The opinion of the court was delivered by: TROUTMAN
The constitutional predicate of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., eludes facile categorization under the Commerce Clause
or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Apparently Congress intended to invoke the former source as legislative authority when it declared that "existence in industries affecting commerce of arbitrary discrimination in employment because of age burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce". 29 U.S.C. § 621(a)(4). This language also suggests that Congress intended to use its full authority under that clause. See Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 570, 63 S. Ct. 332, 336, 87 L. Ed. 460 (1943) (the appropriate terminology for Congress to use when it intends to invoke the full authority of the Commerce Clause is "in any industry affecting commerce") and compare with 29 U.S.C. § 621(a)(4) (above). Compiled during debates relating to amendments to theADEA in 1974, legislative reports stated that Congress intended to effect the purposes of the Act "through the exercise ... of its power to regulate commerce among the several states and with foreign nations". H.R.Rep. No. 93-913, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974) (emphasis added). Similarly, a Senate report confirmed the legislators' belief that "the activities of public section employers affect interstate commerce and therefore that Congress may regulate them pursuant to its powers to regulate interstate commerce". S.Rep. S-543-3, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974). Undoubtedly, in enacting the ADEA Congress considered the Commerce Clause as a source of legislative power. See Usery v. Manchester East Catholic School Board, 430 F. Supp. 188 (D.N.H.1977).
However, this conclusion does not preclude Congress' use of Section 5 as a separate and independent source of authority as well. Regrettably, the legislative history does not reveal a clear address to the issue, but speeches in both houses referred to justifying the proposed proscription against age discrimination in employment on bases similar to ones supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. See 113 Cong.Rec. 34742 (December 4, 1967) and 113 Cong.Rec. 31255 (November 6, 1967). Resemblances between these two acts have prompted courts to interpret one act by resort to the other for clarification and assistance, Smithers v. Bailar, 629 F.2d 892 (3d Cir. 1980), Davis v. Calgon Corp., 627 F.2d 674 (3d Cir. 1980), Ricks v. Delaware State College, 605 F.2d 710 (3d Cir. 1979) cert. granted, 449 U.S. 250, 101 S. Ct. 498, 66 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1980), Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231 (3d Cir. 1977), particularly in light of the acts' common interdiction of employment criteria based on age, race, color, religion and national origin. Compare 29 U.S.C. § 621(b) ("the purpose of this chapter (is) to prohibit age discrimination in employment") with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 ("it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to hire or to discharge any individual ... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin"). See also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973), Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S. Ct. 849, 28 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1971) and compare with Oscar Mayer Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 99 S. Ct. 2066, 60 L. Ed. 2d 609 (1979) and Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 98 S. Ct. 866, 55 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1978). Undoubtedly, Congress exercised its powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment in enacting amendments to Title VII. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S. Ct. 2666, 49 L. Ed. 2d 614 (1976). Similarly, Congress availed itself of the same authority in propounding the ADEA. Arritt v. Grisell, 567 F.2d 1267 (4th Cir. 1977). Accord, Marshall v. Delaware River & Bay Authority, 471 F. Supp. 886 (D.Del.1979), Remmick v. Barnes County, 435 F. Supp. 914 (D.N.Dak.1977), Aaron v. Davis, 424 F. Supp. 1238 (E.D.Ark.1976), Usery v. Board of Education of Salt Lake City, 421 F. Supp. 718 (D.Utah 1976).
Exercise of Congressional authority under Section 5, unlike the Commerce Clause, is not limited by the Tenth Amendment. Usery v. Allegheny County Institutional District, 544 F.2d 148 (3d Cir. 1976). Cf. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S. Ct. 2465, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1976) (certain amendments in 1974 to Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., considered an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause because it impinged on states' freedom to implement their own governmental functions in violation of the Tenth Amendment). In contrast, in Section 5
Congress is expressly granted authority to enforce "by appropriate legislation" the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which themselves embody significant limitations on state authority. When Congress acts pursuant to § 5, not only is it exercising legislative authority that is plenary within the terms of the constitutional grant, it is exercising that authority under one section of a constitutional amendment whose other sections by their own terms embody limitations on state authority .... Congress may, in determining what is "appropriate legislation" for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment provide for private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. at 456, 96 S. Ct. at 2671. See also Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 239-41, 92 S. Ct. 2151, 2160-2161, 32 L. Ed. 2d 705 (Civil War amendments established "the role of the Federal government as a guarantor of federal rights against state power ... Congress clearly conceived that it was altering the relationship between the states and the nation with respect to federally created rights"), Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 651, 86 S. Ct. 1717, 1723, 16 L. Ed. 2d 828 (1966) ("(correctly) viewed, § 5 is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guaranties of the Fourteenth Amendment"), Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. (10 Otto) 339, 346, 25 L. Ed. 667 (1880) ("the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment are directed to the States, and they are to a degree restrictions of state power. It is these which Congress is empowered to enforce against state action ... whether executive, legislative, or judicial"). True, allowing ADEA claims against states impinges upon the concept of federalism immanent in the truism of the Tenth Amendment,
but states' ratification of the Civil War Amendments sanctioned Congressional intervention into judicial, executive and legislative domains previously reserved inviolate to the states.
Ex parte Virginia, supra. In short, the Tenth Amendment does not bar application of the ADEA to a state agency.
In the case sub judice, an enforcement officer employed by defendant Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board instituted this action to obtain reinstatement, damages and attorney's fees after defendant retired him pursuant to the agency's mandatory retirement policy. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and contended that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Defendant argued that the Commerce Clause formed the constitutional foundation for the ADEA and that, therefore, the Tenth Amendment affirmatively limited that power with respect to state governmental functions. As noted above, however, Congress drew upon Section 5 ...