MAYOR GIULIANI CONSIDERS TESTIMONY ON BILL THAT ATTEMPTS TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLICE OFFICER CANDIDATES FROM PRESENT MAXIMUM AGE RESTRICTION REQUIREMENTS
--Remarks By Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani At Public Hearing On Local Laws--
The next bill before me today for consideration is Introductory Number 160-A, sponsored by Speaker Vallone, Council Members Cruz, Rivera, Freed, Leffler and a number of their colleagues. This bill would amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York in relation to the eligibility of certain persons for appointment as police officers, notwithstanding the existing maximum age restriction.
Specifically, Introductory Number 160-A attempts to exempt a specific number of police officer candidates from the maximum age restriction set forth in the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Current law provides that a New York City Police Officer Candidate must be less than 35 years of age at the date of the filing of an application for the Civil Service examination.
The impetus for this legislation was the temporary lapse of the law enforcement exemption to the Federal Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) in December of 1993. The United States Congress let this exemption lapse despite vigorous opposition from law enforcement officials throughout the country. Subsequently, in June of 1996, the Police Department held an exam for which there was no age limit restriction and numerous individuals who sat for the exam were over the age of 35. However, in September of 1996, Congress reinstated the ADEA exemption, and did so retroactively to 1993. It was determined that those individuals who were 35 or older when they sat for the June 1996 exam were no longer legally eligible to enter the Police Academy.
New York City has provided for a maximum appointment age for police officers since 1912. The present maximum age restriction of 35 years of age has been in effect since 1991. Prior to 1991, the maximum age restriction was 29. Various medical studies have shown that age directly affects an individual's ability to perform the duties of a police officer. Therefore, an age restriction is necessary, reasonable and appropriate for the public safety of the City, as well as for the safety of police officers. Every citizen and visitor of New York City relies on the police to protect them and their loved ones, and if police officers cannot adequately perform their duties, valued lives are endangered.
Police work is very physical and hazardous in nature. The safety of police officers and the public they serve often depends on their ability to run, climb and engage in armed and unarmed self-defense. Police officers must be able to perform such physical activity at any time during their tours of duty and throughout the duration of their careers. Older police officers without law enforcement experience are more likely to have greater difficulty performing these required functions. It is because of these rigorous activities that police officers have a required retirement age of 63. However, officers are also required under the Administrative Code to be permitted to serve a full 20 years before they are forced to retire, even if they have reached the age of 63. Therefore, a candidate who is appointed to the force in their forties or fifties would be entitled to work as a police officer, and perform these physical activities while protecting the public until the age of 70.
Because of the physical demands of the job, older Police Officers tend to get injured on the job easier and more often, and are therefore more likely to lose a greater number of days of work than younger officers performing the same functions. This is especially critical in a Department that has a policy of unlimited sick leave for uniformed officers, which places budgetary and uniform strength constraints on the Department.
It is clear that there are many policy and legal concerns with regard to the impact of this legislation.
I will first turn to the sponsors of this legislation, then to anyone in the general audience who would like to speak in favor of, or in opposition to this bill.
Contact Us | FAQs | Privacy Statement | Site Map