Introduction
Madigan v. Levin; is a case that concerned Harvey Levin who an attorney for Illinois State accusing the state of age discrimination since it fired him at the age of 61 and hired a younger attorney. Have not being served with enough reason for his firing, he filled a lawsuit, however question arose on whether people in his position were supposed to take such cases direct to the court or were to follow the administrative procedures set forth in the federal Age Discrimination In Employment Act. A circuit court gave him the go ahead; however, Lisa Madigan Illinois Attorney General argued that age discrimination allegation had to first go through the EEOC as it is outlined in ADEA. With such allegations in hand, both state and local government employers have a stake in the case as its …show more content…
They claimed that ADEA does not eliminate the ability for one to raise a constitutional equal protection claim as in section 1983.
The Supreme Court held that, “when remedial devices provided in a particular Act are sufficiently comprehensive, they may suffice to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under § 1983.”
The trial court seems to have given a precise and rational ruling on Madigan v. Levin case. It ruled that Levin had no age discrimination claim under the Age discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, since his former job fit within an exemption to ADEA coverage. This is despite the fact that Levin seemed to have enough ammunition against attorney General’s office, the trial courts tossed out its ADEA claims pretty unceremoniously, claiming the law was intended to protect employees but not political appointees as he was.
Madigan v. Levin; is a case that concerned Harvey Levin who an attorney for Illinois State accusing the state of age discrimination since it fired him at the age of 61 and hired a younger attorney. Have not being served with enough reason for his firing, he filled a lawsuit, however question arose on whether people in his position were supposed to take such cases direct to the court or were to follow the administrative procedures set forth in the federal Age Discrimination In Employment Act. A circuit court gave him the go ahead; however, Lisa Madigan Illinois Attorney General argued that age discrimination allegation had to first go through the EEOC as it is outlined in ADEA. With such allegations in hand, both state and local government employers have a stake in the case as its …show more content…
They claimed that ADEA does not eliminate the ability for one to raise a constitutional equal protection claim as in section 1983.
The Supreme Court held that, “when remedial devices provided in a particular Act are sufficiently comprehensive, they may suffice to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under § 1983.”
The trial court seems to have given a precise and rational ruling on Madigan v. Levin case. It ruled that Levin had no age discrimination claim under the Age discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, since his former job fit within an exemption to ADEA coverage. This is despite the fact that Levin seemed to have enough ammunition against attorney General’s office, the trial courts tossed out its ADEA claims pretty unceremoniously, claiming the law was intended to protect employees but not political appointees as he was.