TRADITIONALLY, ARBITRARY AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT HAS PREVENTED OLDER AMERICAN FROM OBTAINING JOBS AND HAS THUS CONTRIBUTED TO A SENSE OF INSECURITY REGARDING EMPLOYMENT ALREADY ACQUIRED. RECOGNIZING THE ABSENCE OF LEGAL REDRESS FOR THE VICTIMS OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION, CONGRESS, IN 1968, ENACTED LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT ARBITRARY AGE DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTE THE EMPLOYMENT OF OLDER PERSONS BASED ON ABILITY RATHER THAN AGE. AN EXAMINATION OF CASE LAW HELPS TO DETERMINE HOW THIS COULD AFFECT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NOT REPORTED FEDERAL CASES IN WHICH A POLICE OFFICER CHALLENGED A MAXIMUM AGE LIMITATION FOR HIRING AS VIOLATING THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, MANDATORY RETIREMENT SCHEMES HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE STATE AND GENERALLY HAVE BEEN UPHELD. CONGRESS ALSO HAS PASSED AN AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT (ADEA) TO PROVIDE VICTIMS OF AGE DISCRIMINATION WITH A MEANS OF REDRESS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, ALTHOUGH THERE IS DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHAT SORTS OF CONDUCT ARE SUFFICIENTLY DISCRIMINATORY TO VIOLATE THE ACT. IN 1979 A RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE ADEA EXTENDED COVERAGE OF ITS PROHIBITIONS TO INDIVIDUALS OF AT LEAST 40, BUT LESS THAN 70, YEARS OF AGE. THE ACT PROVIDES THAT AN EMPLOYER MAY TAKE ACTION WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AGE DISCRIMINATORY WHERE THE DIFFERENTIATION IS BASED UPON REASONABLE FACTORS OTHER THAN AGE. FOOTNOTES ARE GIVEN. SEE ALSO NCJ-64213.