New York Judges Sue Over Age Cap: OCA Claims Equal Rights Act Can’t Touch Judicial Retirement Rules
In a bold courtroom showdown that’s got legal eagles buzzing, three New York judges over 70 are fighting mandatory retirement rules, arguing the state’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) wipes out age caps in the judiciary. But the Office of Court Administration (OCA) is pushing back hard, insisting the ERA isn’t enforceable here—sparking a fiery debate on age discrimination in the bench.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court last month, centers on New York’s Constitution Article 15, Section 2, which forces Supreme Court, Family Court, and Surrogate’s Court judges to retire at 70. Plaintiffs—experienced jurists who’ve racked up decades on the bench—claim the 2022 voter-approved ERA, a sweeping anti-discrimination measure, implies repeal of that age limit. They’re seeking an injunction to keep working, arguing the ERA’s protections against age-based bias trump outdated retirement mandates.
Enter the OCA, the state’s judicial watchdog arm, which fired back in court papers this week. In a motion to dismiss, OCA attorneys argue the ERA—enshrined to combat inequality on sex, race, and yes, age—lacks the teeth to override specific constitutional provisions like the age cap. “The ERA is aspirational, not a judicial sledgehammer,” their filing contends, pointing to legislative history showing no intent to upend court retirement rules. They say enforcing it here would unleash chaos, potentially flooding dockets with senior judges amid a judiciary already strained by backlogs.
This isn’t just legalese—it’s a flashpoint in New York’s age discrimination battles. The ERA, passed amid #MeToo momentum, expanded protections to include age, pregnancy, and caregiver status, banning bias in housing, jobs, and public accommodations. But OCA counters that without explicit language repealing the age cap, it can’t be implied, citing precedents like the U.S. Supreme Court’s Gregory v. Ashcroft, which upheld Missouri’s 70-year judicial retirement limit as rational for ensuring “vigorous” judging.
The plaintiffs aren’t buying it. Represented by powerhouse firms, they highlight how the ERA’s broad sweep—ratified by 57% of voters—signals a sea change. One judge, who’s handled high-stakes family cases for 25 years, told reporters off-record: “I’ve got more wisdom now than ever. Forcing me out feels like discrimination, plain and simple.” Their suit invokes both state and federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims, though OCA dismisses the latter as inapplicable to judges.
Legal experts are split. Fordham Law professor Carl Tobias called OCA’s stance “a clever dodge,” predicting a judge might side with the plaintiffs to align New York with progressive states like Iowa, which ditched judicial age caps in 2016. But NYU’s Stephen Gillers warns of ripple effects: “If the ERA trumps here, what’s next—age limits for governors or legislators?” On X, reactions are heated. @NYLawJournal’s post on the filing drew quips like “Judges fighting ageism? About time the bench practices what it preaches,” racking up 145 views overnight. Another from @lawdotcom sparked debate: “OCA’s right—this could paralyze courts,” with users piling on about judicial burnout.
For everyday New Yorkers, this hits close to home. Age discrimination claims have surged 20% statewide since the ERA, per Division of Human Rights data, from tech hires ghosting 50-somethings to real estate snubs for seniors. If plaintiffs win, it could embolden workers across industries—think teachers, cops, even corporate execs—to challenge forced retirements, easing economic pressures in a state where median home prices top $700K and Social Security starts at 62. Politically, it’s a test for Gov. Hochul’s administration: back OCA and risk alienating progressives, or pivot and face fiscal hawks worried about pension costs for longer-serving judges.
The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) isn’t sitting idle. In an amicus brief tease, they slammed OCA’s position as “a betrayal of the ERA’s promise,” vowing to amplify the fight. “Age caps assume decline with years—science says otherwise,” their statement reads, citing studies on cognitive peaks in experienced pros. X chatter echoes this: A Daytona lawyer’s share of the story got traction with “Best case for boomers on the bench!”
As briefs fly, the case underscores a national tension: balancing fresh blood with hard-earned expertise in public service. With oral arguments slated for early 2026, this judicial age discrimination showdown could redefine equity under New York’s Equal Rights Act for generations.
In wrapping up, this lawsuit spotlights the ERA’s potential to dismantle barriers, but OCA’s enforceability argument throws a wrench in. Expect appeals to the Court of Appeals, maybe even federal escalation—keeping age bias in the headlines as New York grapples with fairness for its seasoned workforce.
By Sam Michael
Follow us on social media and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest in legal news, discrimination rights, and court updates—turn on push notifications so you never miss a beat!
New York Equal Rights Amendment, judicial age discrimination, OCA lawsuit response, judges retirement age cap, ERA enforceability New York, age bias judiciary, NYCLU amicus brief, ADEA state employees