In this case, the decision-makers assumed that an older candidate would retire imminently, and manipulated the interview and selection process to avoid hiring this individual. The result was age discrimination rather than an honest, even if flawed, assessment of the candidates. 

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2. The commissioners apparently desired a long-term apointment and believed that the plaintiff’s retirement eligibility made it likely that he would, in fact, retire soon. Legally speaking, what is wrong with that? Would an employer ever be justified in considering a candidate’s propensity to retire?  

3. The city also argues that it chose to promote the most qualified candidate. What is the evidence that this was pretext? 

4. As a practical matter, what should the commissioners have done differently in this situation? Why would these different measures be legally advisable?