Court Rules In Favor of Foxborough In Age Discrimination Case

FOXBOROUGH, MA — The state Appeals Court sided with the town of Foxborough in an age discrimination lawsuit filed by a former reserve police officer

The court Friday upheld a Norfolk Superior Court judge's decision to dismiss the complaint, filed by former Officer George Demeris.

Demeris served as a reserve officer for 21 years. He filed the lawsuit in 2016 after former Police Chief Edward Leary terminated Demeris in 2014, when he turned 66, according to court records.

Foxborough has a mandatory retirement age of 65 for all police officers, including reserves.

But Demeris' attorney Christopher Trombetta argued his client was not subject to the maximum age requirement. He cited an opinion letter from the Public Employment Retirement Commission that argued a police officer could work details after retirement.

Trombetta also argued since Demeris wasn't a full-time police officer, he did not perform the same duties as a regular police officer. He also argued there were five other reserve officers in town who worked after turning 65. Demeris, who was not a full-time police officer, also argued that there were five other reserve officers who worked after turning 65. But the court said he did not explain how that supported his case.

But Judge Peter Krupp disagreed. Krupp in his ruling wrote Demeris failed to prove that he didn't perform the same duties as full-time police officers. He said reserve officers are given the same uniforms and equipment as full-time officers, and legally, both have the same authority.

Krupp also wrote Demeris failed to prove how the town employing reserve officers over 65 was evidence of age discrimination.

"The town admits that these people were employed by the town and does not dispute their ages," Krupp wrote. "But the plaintiff does not explain how this fact supports his age discrimination claim. While inconsistent application of the retirement age requirement (if indeed that is what occurred) may raise other issues (which the plaintiff does not identify or argue), it does not support the plaintiff's age discrimination."