Skip to main content

Village of Amityville and Amityville Fire Department Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Suit

Retirement System Penalized Older Firefighters Because of Age, Federal Agency Charged

NEW YORK – The Village of Amityville, N.Y., and the Amityville Fire Department will pay $209,280 to settle a class age-discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s suit alleged that Amityville refused to let volunteer firefighters over age 65 accrue credit toward a “length of service award,” the equivalent of a retirement pension, because of their age. As a result, senior firefighters lost pension amounts after they turned 65, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) a federal law that protects workers age 40 and older from age discrimination. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civ. No. 2:09-03742 ADS/AKT, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

The consent decree filed in resolution of this suit permanently eliminates an age restriction on service credit, mandates training for individuals responsible for this program and institutes an anti-discrimination policy. Further, retroactive payments will be made to 23 volunteer firefighters who had been barred from receiving credit for their service because of their age. The settlement also provides for increased monthly pension amounts for 15 of those firefighters still living.

“The fire department’s system penalized older firefighters because of their age, and that was simply illegal,” said Adela Santos, the EEOC trial attorney assigned to the case.

EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Judy Keenan said, “We are pleased that the parties worked together to resolve this matter so that these brave firefighters, who risk their lives, will finally receive appropriate compensation for their years of service.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...