In 2012, a New Jersey jury issued a verdict in an age discrimination suit filed against Passaic County prosecutor James Avigliano. Six detectives with a total of 150 years of law enforcement between them were laid off by Avigliano’s office during a time of significant budget cuts in 2008. The detectives alleged that Avigliano had targeted them for forced retirement because of their age. As older, longtime employees, the six had significant pensions. The defense argued that the detectives’ pensions were a reason- able basis for requiring their early retirement. “[I]t had nothing to do with age,” the defense attorney told the jury. “Avigliano had to make a hard choice—a choice he didn’t want to make. He asked these guys to retire. They had benefits packages.” Given the extent of the necessary budget cuts, by laying off longtime employees with medical benefits and pensions, the defense argued, “fewer employees would have to be let go, and they’d have a safe landing.” The plaintiffs’ lawyer contended that targeting people for layoffs because they have pensions to fall back on is itself discriminatory, according to state discrimination statutes. In addition, such targeting is bad public policy.

“What incentive is there, then, to pay your dues?” the plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury. “We want the most experienced people on the streets.” How would you decide the case, if you were on this jury? What is your own judgment of Avigliano’s “hard choice?” Do you view his rationale for laying off older workers as “bad public policy” or the least harmful choice in light of economic pressures?