Age Discrimination in Madigan v. Levin

Basics:

The Supreme Court case to be closely followed and reviewed for class this semester is Madigan v. Levin. This is a case of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Lisa Madigan is the petitioner, with Harvey N. Levin being the respondent. On Monday, March 18, 2013, the case was granted and on Monday, October 7, 2013, it was argued. (OYEZ, Inc., 2013)

Facts of the Case:

This is a case of age discrimination. On September 5, 2000, Harvey N. Levin was hired as an Illinois Assistant District Attorney, but was then terminated a little under six years later on May 12, 2006. Being that Levin was over the age of sixty, Levin believed this firing was due to his gender and age. To support Levin’s point, a female attorney in her thirties was hired as his replacement. This led to Levin suing, under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan the Illinois Attorney General, and four other Attorney General employees. (OYEZ, Inc., 2013)

The case was moved for dismissal by the respondent, but the district court had ruled originally that the ADEA granted the qualified immunity for the proceeding and the case was reassigned to a different district court judge. This district court held that Levin was not able to pursue these claims due to not being an employee for covered purposes. Some states are immune to damages from the ADEA, but due to discrimination, the Equal Protection Clause could be violated leading to states being held liable for damages. (OYEZ, Inc., 2013)

Judgement:

After following this case for the majority of the semester, it was difficult to think exactly what the Supr...

... middle of paper ...

... end, Justice Antonin Scalia stated what one could assume the entire Court was thinking, “We don’t like to dismiss a case as improvidently granted, and … only when the -- when the case is before us, counsel suddenly finds all sorts of reasons why we shouldn’t have taken it in the first place. You should have told us that before we took it.” (OYEZ, Inc., 2013), leading to the official dismissal of the Madigan v. Levin.

Before even bringing the case forth, the counsel should have done all research that could have been done. There was much information that could have been brought forward to support both sides, as the Justices stated, yet the counsel kept talking in circles and seemingly had no idea how to even argue the case.

Works Cited

OYEZ, Inc. (2013, September 12). Madigan v. Levin. OYEZ. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_872#mla