ÿWPCÔ* BÏú\·Éš‰X‰¼v0AšÌ²XîX }ÙÙ¦X‘cì8‘!qXÇ€s%¦„6BeUÒöÉ»šÆiëNŠíQ;Ìöm€Êï^bÓ3¤3Añ(ln=%ˆ`׃­(Óê¬>·~¨zÉ–°KL›¢œ)wYŸ“gäâB”ìYR"±¸ÚÒuOs1Öy[õch´ 4ßs°Šyì޲UJë ÀYY®©Š 1™Öļ7Œ†¤»œ£apÛD¯4µX1k‡’Ë$Å]QðÈõ^»š]Õù9gÚOà ¹ûÜóß{MÁOg Þ9¦Ø<ûg¿œ98R5d£Fi‡Þgv°½ðÀ¥Ài:›Õdl$ÃÜ+4¦·f$õ®Äý‹á nª˜#ÑZ•þb\?‹‘ª¨¯â¦Éº7™ Å*ƒ]Ú€ù^sï ñÒpéðAR»~3ôvñç‹à-®jºQøƒ Dß Ã#Î]’âh1‡|¿8¿ £¬”ùÏÔÆ)7ñ,|R!Éê· JRÁ€®X}ʬîF¦«Ì» œïX+BB)èjGL S5.­ÉšéµEòEªnéCöÿé,´Íe¹™Í›ú3ªaúÙÜ: ÜV$Lî‘pf&nꊭ14)¡·\Â’£Ru#Áf %' 0D- 0(q U:™ 0ÆÓ UN™ nTç N; UF= U>ƒ ^ Á wÍ 4Ñ å ô Eö fø aú m%N- 1‡/ 72¶ 1uè 72] 0 c 0wò 0Ši 1‡ó 1‡z 72^3 1‡‘ 72 72JUB|b¾ BÆãço 7t!t!b«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«(«( AŸ³( 0DR)R) D-–) 0KÃ)Æ*˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2›Ø$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€AŒX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóvÖr Z‹6Times New Roman Regular«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@´¾½Q 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular<è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular:§1.s Êu—-s?,}£backup3|xøÀTABLE AÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ 0µFCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.A.1.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(º½CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT(ª½CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A."A.A.<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù- d úÝ ƒ›Ø$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€\tX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSPARA€brought€suit€against€John€DiFava,€Superintendent€of€theÐ ° ÐDepartment€of€State€Police;€Ellen€Philbin,€Executive€Director€ofÐ †Ö Ðthe€Massachusetts€State€Police€Retirement€Board;€and€Jane€Perlov,Ð \¬ ÐSecretary€of€Public€Safety€in€their€individual€capacities.Ð 2‚ Ð Ý ƒ›Ø$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€\tX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€ADEA€prohibits€an€employer€from€"failing€to€hire€or€toÐ ° Ðdischarge€any€individual€or€otherwise€discriminate€against€anyÐ †Ö Ðindividual€with€respect€to€his€compensation,€terms,€conditions,€orÐ \¬ Ðprivileges€of€employment€because€of€such€individual's€age€.€.€.€."Ð 2‚ Ð29€U.S.C.€ðð€623(a). e Ý ƒ›Ø$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€\tX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€safe„harbor€provision€of€the€ADEA,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€623(j),Ð ° Ðcreates€an€exemption€that€gives€state€and€local€officials€theÐ †Ö Ðoption€to€lawfully€retire€law€enforcement€officials€who€haveÐ \¬ Ðattained€the€age€of€retirement€in€effect€under€applicable€state€orÐ 2‚ Ðlocal€law€on€March€3,€1983,€or€pursuant€to€a€state€law€enactedÐ X Ðafter€September€30,€1996,€that€is€not€a€subterfuge€to€evade€theÐ Þ. Ðpurposes€of€the€ADEA.€€òòSeeóó€òòGatelyóó€v.€òòMassachusettsóó,€2€F.3d€1221,Ð ´  Ð1228„29€(1st€Cir.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€511€U.S.€1082€(1994)Ð Š Ú Ð(referring€to€the€1986€amendment);€òòGatelyóó€v.€òòMassachusettsóó,€No.€92„Ð ` ° Ð13018„MA,€1998€WL€518179,€at€*7€n.5€(D.€Mass.€June€8,€1998)Ð 6 †  Ð(discussing€the€applicability€of€the€safe„harbor€provision€to€ððÐ  \  Ð6(3)(a)).€€The€history€of€the€safe„harbor€provision€is€complex.€€InÐ â 2  Ð1986,€Congress€amended€the€ADEA€to€create€a€time„limited€exemptionÐ ¸  Ðthat€allowed€states€to€make€hiring€and€discharge€decisions€of€lawÐ ŽÞ  Ðenforcement€personnel€pursuant€to€applicable€state€or€local€law€inÐ d´  Ðeffect€on€March€3,€1983€„„€the€day€after€issuance€of€the€SupremeÐ :Š  ÐCourt's€decision€in€òòEEOCóó€v.€òòWyomingóó,€460€U.S.€226,€239€(1983),Ð `  Ðholding€that€the€ADEA€validly€applied€to€state€and€localÐ æ6 Ðgovernments.€€The€exemption,€designed€to€provide€states€anÐ ¼  Ðopportunity€to€adjust€to€the€Supreme€Court's€decision,€expired€onÐ ’â ÐDecember€31,€1993.€€On€that€date€the€ADEA's€strictures€against€ageÐ h¸ Ðdiscrimination€would€thus€become€fully€applicable€to€state€andÐ >Ž Ðlocal€employment€decisions€related€to€law€enforcement€officers.€Ð d ÐHowever,€on€September€30,€1996,€Congress€again€amended€the€ADEA€soÐ ê: Ðas€to€reinstate€the€safe„harbor€provision,€with€some€revisions.€Ð À ÐThe€amendments€were€made€retroactive€to€December€31,€1993.Ð –æ Ð -Ý ƒ›Ø$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€\tX‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€SPARA's€members€had€ample€notice€of€the€òòGatelyóóÐ ° Ðaction.€€They€could€have€brought€their€views€to€the€attention€ofÐ †Ö Ðthe€Commonwealth's€attorney€general€in€a€timely€fashion,€or€evenÐ \¬ Ðsought€to€persuade€the€court€to€allow€them€to€interveneÐ 2‚ Ðpermissively,€or,€possibly,€to€file€an€amicus€brief€on€the€pointÐ X Ðnow€made.€€State€police€officers€were€apprised€of€the€developmentsÐ Þ. Ðin€the€òòGatelyóó€litigation€through€internal€memoranda€and€pressÐ ´  Ðcoverage.€€The€òòGatelyóó€action€spanned€six€years€„„€from€the€date€ofÐ Š Ú Ðthe€preliminary€injunction€issued€in€1992€to€the€date€of€the€nearlyÐ ` ° Ðidentical€permanent€injunction€issued€in€1998.€€The€impact€of€theÐ 6 †  Ðinjunction€on€advancement€within€the€department€was€certainly€aÐ  \  Ðmatter€that€could€have€been€anticipated€during€the€six€years€theÐ â 2  Ðpreliminary€injunction€was€in€place.€€The€Commonwealth's€litigationÐ ¸  Ðposition€„„€upholding€the€mandatory€retirement€age€withoutÐ ŽÞ  Ðdifferentiating€among€officers€„„€was€revealed,€at€the€latest,Ð d´  Ðduring€its€appeal€from€the€preliminary€injunction€in€1992.€€Yet,€itÐ :Š  Ðwas€not€until€two€years€after€the€final€judgment€was€entered€in€theÐ `   ÐòòGatelyóó€action€that€a€SPARA€member€sought€to€intervene.€€When€thatÐ ° Ðmotion€to€intervene€was€denied€as€untimely,€the€intervenor€did€notÐ †Ö Ðappeal€from€the€decision.€- ù-tpsr‘ I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€.ÑÑ8€\tXXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ€XjµXXXÔÔ€°£Ñ°XXjµÔò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ€„¸„°°£ÑÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ€ „ª„„„¸ÔÔ€ X\tX„ „ªÔÐ „Ô ÐÓ>ÓÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌÔ€ X\tXX X\tÔNos.€01„1581,€01„2429Ð K › ÐÌÌà@TT ìàSTATE€POLICE€FOR€AUTOMATIC€RETIREMENT€ASSOCIATION,€ET€AL.,ˆÐ Í   ÐÌà@ˆˆìàPlaintiffs,€Appellants,ˆÐ yÉ  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ %u  ÐÌà@ppìàJOHN€DIFAVA,€SUPERINTENDENT€OF€THE€DEPARTMENT€OF€ˆÐ Ñ! ÐÓ  ÓSTATE€POLICE,€ET€AL.,Ð §÷ ÐÓÓÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees,ˆÐ S£ ÐÌÓ  ÓßA€') °°` dE<þ` AßÐ ÿO ÐÌROBERT€T.€DEVEREAUX,€ET€AL.,Ð ä4 ÐÌIntervenors,€Appellees,Ð à ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<;` Aßà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àÐ <Œ ÐÌEQUAL€EMPLOYMENT€OPPORTUNITY€COMMISSION,Ð !q ÐÌIntervenors,€Appellees.Ð Í ÐÌÓ™ÓÌßA€') °°` dE<N ` AßÐ O Ÿ" ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 4!„$ ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ à"0& Ðà@ìì*ìàˆ¹Ó  Ó[Hon.€Patti€B.€Saris,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]Ð Œ$Ü( ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<7&` AßÐ 8&ˆ!* ÐÌà@@„„'ìàBeforeÐ 'm", ÐÌà@@((ìà€Torruella,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð É($. ÐÌCampbell€and€Cyr,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgesóó.Ð u*Å%0 ÐÌßA€') °°` dE< ,` AßÐ !,q'2 ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòMichael€C.€McLaughlinóó€with€whom€òòLaw€Offices€of€Michael€C.Ð Ü-,)5L ÐMcLaughlinóó€was€on€brief€for€appellants.Ð ° Ðà  àòòPaul€D.€Ramshawóó,€Attorney,€with€whom€òòNicholas€M.€Inzeoóó,€ActingÐ †Ö ÐDeputy€General€Counsel,€òòPhilip€B.€Skloveróó,€Associate€GeneralÐ \¬ ÐCounsel,€òòVincent€J.€Blackwoodóó,€Assistant€General€Counsel,€were€onÐ 2‚ Ðbrief€for€intervenor„appellee,€Equal€Employment€OpportunityÐ X ÐCommission.Ð Þ. Ðà  àòòJames€B.€Conroyóó€with€whom€òòJeffrey€L.€Levyóó€and€òòDonnelly,€ConroyÐ ´  Ð&€Gelhaar,€LLPóó€were€on€brief€for€intervenors„appellees,€CaptainÐ Š Ú ÐRobert€T.€Devereaux,€et€al.Ð ` ° Ðà  àòòDeborah€S.€Steenlandóó,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€with€whomÐ 6 †  ÐòòThomas€F.€Reillyóó,€Attorney€General,€and€òòThomas€A.€Barnicoóó,Ð  \  ÐAssistant€Attorney€General,€were€on€brief€for€defendants„appellees,Ð â 2  ÐJohn€DiFava,€Superintendent€of€the€Department€of€State€Police,€etÐ ¸  Ðal.Ð ŽÞ  ÐÌà  àÌÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ ¼ ¼  ‹‹ÐÓ: ÓÐ SI p  `â@37637„„‰ `â@‰‹‹SÐÌJanuary€17,€2003Ð öF ÐÐ RHCÌ"  `â@37637  `â@ ‹‹RÐÐ( p  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÐ  ¨ø ÐÓ  Óà  à¹Ñ  ÑÓÓÑ8€%\t%XXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÑ€&.ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÝ ƒÿÝÝ  Ýà ` àò òCAMPBELL,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€appeal€concerns€aÐ †Ö Ðcollateral€attack€on€an€injunction,€preliminarily€issued€by€theÐ Nž Ðdistrict€court€in€1992€and,€with€modifications,€made€permanent€inÐ úJ Ð1998.€€The€effect€of€the€injunction€is€to€prevent€the€CommonwealthÐ ¦ ö Ðof€Massachusetts€("Commonwealth")€from€enforcing€a€state€law€thatÐ R ¢  Ðrequires€members€of€its€reconstituted€state€police€force€to€retireÐ þ N  Ðupon€reaching€the€age€of€55.€€Appellant,€State€Police€for€AutomaticÐ ªú  ÐRetirement€Association€("SPARA"),€contends€that€the€challengedÐ V¦  Ðpermanent€injunction€has€injured€its€members€by€diminishing€theirÐ R Ðpromotional€opportunities.€€According€to€SPARA,€the€injunctionÐ ®þ Ðviolates€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€in€òòKimelóó€v.€òòFlorida€Board€ofÐ Zª ÐRegentsóó,€528€U.S.€62€(2000),€and€was€also€overly€broad€andÐ V Ðerroneous€when€issued.€€Appellant€appeals€from€the€district€court'sÐ ² Ðrefusal€to€enjoin€the€Commonwealth€from€complying€with€theÐ ^® Ðallegedly€faulty€injunction€and€also€from€the€court's€dismissal€ofÐ  Z ÐSPARA's€complaint€against€three€state€officials€("StateÐ ¶ ÐOfficials")׃(×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€for€their€failure€to€enforce€the€mandatory€stateÐ b ²! Ðpolice€retirement€age€of€55.€€In€separate€orders,€the€districtÐ "^# Ðcourt€denied€SPARA's€request€for€a€preliminary€injunction€andÐ º# % Ðgranted€the€defendant„appellees'€motion€to€dismiss.€€The€courtÐ f%¶ ' Ðruled€that€SPARA's€action€was€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€resÐ ° Ðjudicata€and,€in€the€alternative,€by€stare€decisis.€€We€affirm,Ð \¬ Ðalbeit€on€somewhat€different€grounds.Ð X ÐÓ€ (µF03ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òÝ‚3£eÝÔ2µFÔÚ  ÚIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝBackgroundó ó€€Ýƒ3£e•݌д ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àThe€focus€of€this€action€is€a€Massachusetts€law,€enactedÐ | Ì Ðin€1991€as€part€of€the€reorganization€of€the€Massachusetts€StateÐ ( x  ÐPolice,€that€mandated€the€automatic€retirement€of€all€members€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€reconstituted€police€force€at€age€55.€€Pursuant€to€Chapter€412Ð €Ð  Ðof€the€Massachusetts€Acts€of€1991,€the€Metropolitan€DistrictÐ ,|  ÐCommission€Police€("MDC€Police"),€the€Registry€of€Motor€VehiclesÐ Ø( ÐLaw€Enforcement€Division€("Registry€Police"),€and€the€CapitolÐ „Ô ÐPolice€were€merged€with€the€Division€of€State€Police.€€Section€122Ð 0€ Ðof€Chapter€412,€codified€at€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€32,€ðð€6(3)(a)Ð Ü, Ð(1992),€required€all€members€of€the€newly€consolidated€State€PoliceÐ ˆØ ÐDepartment€to€retire€at€age€55.€€Prior€to€the€consolidation,€theÐ 4„ ÐMDC€Police,€the€Registry€Police,€and€the€Capitol€Police€had€beenÐ à0 Ðrequired€by€Massachusetts€law€to€retire€at€age€65.€€In€contrast,Ð ŒÜ  Ðthe€original€State€Police€Division€officers€had€been€mandated€byÐ 8!ˆ" Ðlaw€to€retire€at€age€50.€€Thus,€ðð€6(3)(a)€added€five€years€to€theÐ ä"4$ Ðmandatory€retirement€age€of€officers€formerly€in€the€original€stateÐ $à& Ðpolice€division,€but€subtracted€ten€years€from€the€forcedÐ <&Œ!( Ðretirement€age€of€officers€formerly€belonging€to€the€MDC€Police,Ð è'8#* Ðâ âRegistry€Police,€and€Capitol€Police.Ð ”)ä$, Ðà ` àFacing€mandatory€retirement€ten€years€earlier€thanÐ ° Ðâ âanticipated,€forty„five€officers€of€the€former€MDC€Police,€CapitolÐ \¬ ÐPolice,€and€Registry€Police€brought€an€action€in€the€district€courtÐ X Ðin€December€1992,€(the€"òòGatelyóó€action"),€seeking€to€invalidate€theÐ ´  Ðmandatory€retirement€provision€contained€in€ðð€6(3)(a)€as€beingÐ ` ° Ðviolative€of€the€federal€Age€Discrimination€in€Employment€ActÐ  \  Ð("ADEA"),€29€U.S.C.€ðð€621€òòetóó€òòseq.óó€(1999€&€Supp.€II).׃)×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€districtÐ ¸  Ðcourt€entered€a€preliminary€injunction€enjoining€the€CommonwealthÐ d´  Ðfrom€enforcing€the€mandatory€retirement€provision€of€the€new€law.€Ð `  ÐThe€preliminary€injunction€provided€that€the€Commonwealth€wasÐ ¼  Ð"temporarily€restrained€and€enjoined€from€dismissing€or€retiringÐ h¸ Ðplaintiffs€or€other€officers€because€they€are€aged€55€or€older."€Ð d ÐòòGatelyóó€v.€òòMassachusettsóó,€92„CV„13018„MA€(D.€Mass.€Dec.€30,€1992)Ð À Ð(order€granting€preliminary€injunction).€€The€Commonwealth€appealedÐ l¼ Ðfrom€the€preliminary€injunction.€€This€court€affirmed€theÐ h Ðinjunction,€rejecting,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€the€Commonwealth's€contentionÐ Ä Ðthat€the€ADEA's€safe„harbor€provision€allowed€the€Commonwealth€toÐ pÀ  Ðâ âapply€to€the€plaintiffs€the€mandatory€state€police€retirement€ageÐ !l" Ðfound€in€ðð€6(3)(a).׃*×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòGatelyóó€v.€òòMassachusettsóó,€2€F.3d€1221,€1229Ð ° Ð(1st€Cir.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€511€U.S.€1082€(1994).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àFollowing€the€denial€of€its€appeal,€the€CommonwealthÐ X Ðmoved€the€district€court€to€amend€the€preliminary€injunction€"onÐ ´  Ðthe€grounds€that€the€current€order€enjoins€the€defendants€fromÐ ` ° Ðretiring€the€member[s]€of€the€state€police€at€any€age."€€TheÐ  \  ÐCommonwealth€requested€the€following€order:€€"that€the€defendantsÐ ¸  Ð.€.€.€are€temporarily€restrained€and€enjoined€from€dismissing€orÐ d´  Ðretiring€plaintiffs€or€other€officers€because€they€are€between€theÐ `  Ðages€of€55„64."€€The€plaintiffs€opposed€the€motion.€€On€NovemberÐ ¼  Ð24,€1993,€in€a€margin€note,€the€district€court€allowed€theÐ ° Ðdefendant's€motion€and€enjoined€the€Commonwealth€from€retiringÐ \¬ Ðstate€police€officers€because€they€were€64€or€younger.€€Ð X Ðà ` àOn€September€23,€1996,€the€plaintiffs€filed€an€emergencyÐ ´  Ðmotion€to€amend€the€preliminary€injunction.€€The€plaintiffsÐ ` ° Ðrequested€that€the€original€preliminary€injunction€be€reinstated€Ð  \  Ðto€"allow€the€few€plaintiffs€who€are€likely€to€attain€the€age€of€65Ð ¸  Ðbefore€this€case€is€resolved€to€avoid€sustaining€the€very€harm€theÐ d´  ÐADEA€and€proposed€legislation€is€designed€to€prevent."€€TheÐ `  ÐCommonwealth€opposed€the€new€amendment€arguing€that€the€currentÐ ¼  Ðinjunction€was€consistent€with€the€settled€expectations€of€theÐ h¸ Ðparties€because€prior€to€the€consolidation€of€the€four€divisionsÐ d Ð"no€officer€had€the€expectation€of€remaining€employed€beyond€ageÐ À Ð65."€Ð l¼ Ðà ` àThe€district€court€granted€the€plaintiffs'€motion€noting:Ð h ÐÓÓà8 ` àThis€issue€raises€an€important€but€difficultÐ Ä Ðpolicy€question.€€However,€I€am€persuaded€thatÐ šê Ðthe€state€law,€fairness€to€the€two€policeÐ pÀ  Ðofficers,€and€the€limited€immediate€impactÐ F –! Ðwhich€will€result,€provide€grounds€upon€whichÐ !l" Ðto€grant€the€motion.€€With€respect€to€theseÐ ò!B# Ðtwo€officers€and€others€currently€on€the€forceÐ È"$ Ðwho€might€become€similarly€situated,Ð ž#î% Ðtherefore,€the€plaintiffs'€motion€to€amend€theÐ t$Ä& Ðpreliminary€injunction€is€GRANTED.€ÐJ%š '` x` x Ѐ€Ð  &p!( ÐÓy0ÓòòGatelyóó€v.€òòMassachusettsóó,€No.€92„13018€(D.€Mass.€Sept.€26,€1996)Ð ö&F") Ð(order€amending€preliminary€injunction).Ð ¢(ò#+ Ðà ` àBetween€1993€and€1996,€the€court€case€lay€dormant€as€theÐ N*ž%- Ðparties€attempted€to€negotiate€a€settlement€which€was€to€include€aÐ ú+J'/ Ðlegislative€solution.€€Proffered€state€legislation€would€haveÐ ° Ðpermitted€state€police€officers€to€remain€employed€past€theÐ \¬ Ðmandatory€retirement€age€of€55€if€they€could€pass€a€physical€exam.€Ð X ÐThis€legislation€was€suggested€in€the€aftermath€of€the€"LandryÐ ´  ÐReport,"€a€3,000€page€report,€authorized€by€Congress,€concludingÐ ` ° Ðthat€no€age€less€than€70€would€serve€as€a€bona€fide€occupationalÐ  \  Ðqualification€("BFOQ")€for€law€enforcement€work.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àNeither€a€legislative€solution€nor€any€settlementÐ d´  Ðoccurred,€however,€and€the€plaintiffs,€by€then€including€the€EqualÐ `  ÐEmployment€Opportunity€Commission€("EEOC"),€which€had€sinceÐ ¼  Ðintervened,€moved€for€summary€judgment.€€The€plaintiffs€argued€thatÐ h¸ Ðthe€Commonwealth€could€not€establish€that€the€mandatory€retirementÐ d Ðage€of€55€in€ðð€6(3)(a)€was€a€BFOQ€as€required€by€the€ADEA€and,€asÐ À Ða€result,€the€law€violated€the€ADEA.€€On€June€8,€1998,€the€districtÐ l¼ Ðcourt€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€plaintiffs€and€theÐ h Ðintervenor„plaintiff,€the€EEOC.€€The€court€ruled€that€ðð€6(3)(a),Ð Ä Ðwhich€established€a€mandatory€retirement€age€of€55€for€officers€ofÐ pÀ  Ðthe€State€Police,€was€superseded€and€preempted€by€the€ADEA,€29Ð !l" ÐU.S.C.€ðð€623(a)(1).€€The€court€ordered€that€the€Commonwealth€wasÐ È"$ Ð"permanently€enjoined€from€requiring€officers€of€the€Department€ofÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€State€Police€to€retire€solely€on€the€basis€of€their€age."€€TheÐ  &p!( ÐCommonwealth€did€not€appeal.€€Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àIn€August€2000,€Gerald€A.€Colletta,€III,€a€State€PoliceÐ x)È$, ÐLieutenant€and€a€member€of€SPARA,€attempted€to€intervene€in€theÐ $+t&. ÐòòGatelyóó€action€and€seek€relief€from€the€judgment€pursuant€to€Fed.€R.Ð ° ÐCiv.€P.€60(b)(5),€in€light€of€the€Supreme€Court's€ruling€in€òòKimelóóÐ \¬ Ðv.€òòFlorida€Board€of€Regentsóó,€528€U.S.€62€(2000).€€The€districtÐ X Ðcourt€denied€the€motion€to€intervene€as€untimely.€€Colletta€did€notÐ ´  Ðappeal€from€the€denial€of€his€motion.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àIn€January€2001,€SPARA,€and€a€long€list€of€namedÐ  \  Ðindividuals,€initiated€an€action€of€their€own€in€the€districtÐ ¸  Ðcourt.€€SPARA,€and€named€plaintiffs,€contended€that€they€were€beingÐ d´  Ðinjured€by€the€continued€enforcement€of€an€invalid€and€overly€broadÐ `  ÐòòGatelyóó€injunction.€€The€plaintiffs€asserted€that€the€existingÐ ¼  Ðinjunction€was€"directly€responsible€for€members€of€SPARA€beingÐ h¸ Ðdenied€promotions."€€The€basis€of€SPARA's€initial€complaint€and€theÐ d Ðfirst€amended€complaint€was€that€the€permanent€injunction€wasÐ À Ðinvalid€in€light€of€òòKimelóó.€€The€district€court€permitted€the€EEOCÐ l¼ Ðand€certain€state€police€officers,€aged€50€or€older,€to€intervene.€Ð h Ðà ` àSPARA€moved€for€a€preliminary€injunction€based€on€readingÐ Ä ÐòòKimelóó€to€stand€for€the€proposition€that€the€ADEA€no€longer€appliedÐ pÀ  Ðto€the€States.€€The€district€court€denied€the€motion.€€òòState€PoliceÐ !l" Ðfor€Automatic€Ret.€Ass'nóó€v.€òòDiFavaóó,€138€F.€Supp.€2d€142€(D.€Mass.Ð È"$ Ð2001).€€SPARA,€with€the€district€court's€permission,€amended€itsÐ t$Ä& Ðcomplaint€two€more€times€to€include€claims€that€the€injunction€inÐ  &p!( ÐòòGatelyóó€was€invalid€because€(1)€the€district€court€in€the€òòGatelyóóÐ Ì'#* Ðaction€misconstrued€the€applicability€of€the€safe„harbor€provisionÐ x)È$, Ðin€the€ADEA€for€mandatory€retirement€plans€for€state€lawÐ $+t&. Ðenforcement€officers,€29€U.S.C.€ðð€623(j);€(2)€the€blanketÐ ° Ðprohibition€against€requiring€the€retirement€of€any€state€policeÐ \¬ Ðofficer€at€age€55€or€older€had€created€a€de€facto€class€action€inÐ X Ðviolation€of€Federal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€23;€and€(3)€theÐ ´  Ðinjunction€impermissibly€lacked€a€termination€date.€€SPARA€alsoÐ ` ° Ðappeared€to€argue€that€the€State€Officials€were€applying€theÐ  \  Ðinjunction€incorrectly€in€direct€contravention€of€this€court'sÐ ¸  Ðdecision€in€òòGatelyóó,€2€F.3d€at€1221.€Ð d´  Ðà ` àThe€State€Officials€and€the€intervenors€filed€a€motion€toÐ `  Ðdismiss€the€Third€Amended€Complaint.€€The€district€court€allowedÐ ¼  Ðthe€motion,€concluding€that€SPARA's€action€was€barred€by€theÐ h¸ Ðdoctrine€of€res€judicata.€€òòState€Police€for€Automatic€Ret.€Ass'nóó€v.Ð d ÐòòDiFavaóó,€164€F.€Supp.€2d€141,€155€(D.€Mass.€2001).€€The€courtÐ À Ðdetermined€that€there€had€been€(1)€a€final€judgement€in€the€òòGatelyóóÐ l¼ Ðaction;€(2)€that€the€present€action€derived€from€the€same€set€ofÐ h Ðoperative€facts;€and€(3)€that€the€Commonwealth€had€ably€representedÐ Ä Ðthe€interests€of€SPARA€in€the€òòGatelyóó€action.€€In€the€alternative,Ð pÀ  Ðthe€district€court€ruled€that,€given€this€court's€decisionÐ !l" Ðaffirming€the€preliminary€injunction,€stare€decisis€precluded€itÐ È"$ Ðfrom€reviewing€or€altering€the€permanent€injunction.€€The€districtÐ t$Ä& Ðcourt€also€dismissed€SPARA's€claims€that€the€lack€of€a€terminationÐ  &p!( Ðdate€invalidated€the€permanent€injunction€and€denied€SPARA'sÐ Ì'#* Ðattempt€to€sue€under€Federal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€23,€notingÐ x)È$, Ðthat€the€rules€did€not€create€federal€substantive€rights.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àThis€appeal€followed.Ð ° ÐÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òÝ‚3££LÝÔ2µFÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝDiscussionó ó݃3££LÓLÝŒÐ\¬` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àOn€appeal,€SPARA€does€not€pursue€all€the€points€raisedÐ $t Ðbelow.€€SPARA€does€not€challenge€the€district€court's€decisions€(1)Ð Ð  Ðthat€stare€decisis€precluded€it€from€reviewing€and€altering€theÐ | Ì Ðpermanent€injunction;€(2)€that€SPARA€was€without€a€cause€of€actionÐ ( x  Ðunder€Federal€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€23€(Count€II);€and€(3)€thatÐ Ô$  ÐSPARA€did€not€properly€allege€constitutional€equal€protectionÐ €Ð  Ðclaims€based€on€animus€under€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€1985€and€1986€(Counts€VÐ ,|  Ðand€VI).€Ð Ø( Ðà ` àOur€discussion€is€limited€to€the€issues€SPARA€now€arguesÐ „Ô Ðon€appeal.€€First,€SPARA€claims€that€the€district€court€erred€whenÐ 0€ Ðit€concluded€that,€after€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€in€òòKimelóó,€theÐ Ü, ÐADEA€remains€applicable€to€the€states.€€Second,€SPARA€argues€thatÐ ˆØ Ðthe€doctrine€of€res€judicata€does€not€bar€it€from€attacking€theÐ 4„ Ðpermanent€injunction€issued€in€òòGatelyóó.€€Third,€SPARA€attacksÐ à0 Ðgenerally€the€breadth€of€the€permanent€injunction,€claiming€thatÐ ŒÜ  Ðthe€district€court€in€the€original€òòGatelyóó€action€exceeded€its€powerÐ 8!ˆ" Ðwhen€it€enjoined€the€state€from€retiring€state€police€officersÐ ä"4$ Ðsubject€to€age€50€retirement€prior€to€the€merger.Ð $à& ÐØ! !ØÓ€ (š½80ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òÓÓÝ‚3£öSÝÔ2š½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝWhether€the€ADEA€Remains€Applicable€to€the€Statesó ó݃3£öS8TÝŒÐ<&Œ!(` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àÌÓ&TÓà ` àSPARA€contends€that€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€in€òòKimelóóÐ ö'F#* Ðrenders€the€ADEA€inapplicable€to€the€states€in€the€presentÐ ¢)ò$, Ðsituation.€€Under€this€view,€the€continuing€permanent€injunctionÐ N+ž&. Ðissued€in€the€òòGatelyóó€action,€enforcing€the€ADEA€in€such€a€way€as€toÐ ° Ðnullify€the€state's€mandatory€age€55€retirement€law,€is€an€illegalÐ \¬ Ðand€invalid€exercise€of€federal€judicial€power,€leaving€theÐ X ÐCommonwealth's€statute€requiring€the€age„based€retirement€of€stateÐ ´  Ðpolice€officers€in€full€force.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThis€reading€of€òòKimelóó€is€erroneous.€€The€òòKimelóó€CourtÐ  \  Ðreiterated€the€Supreme€Court's€earlier€holding€in€òòWyomingóó,€460€U.S.Ð ¸  Ð226€(1983),€that€the€ADEA€constitutes€a€valid€exercise€ofÐ d´  ÐCongress's€power€under€Article€I,€ðð€8,€cl.€3€"'[t]o€regulateÐ `  ÐCommerce€.€.€.€among€the€several€States.'"€€òòKimelóó,€528€U.S.€at€78Ð ¼  Ð(quoting€òòWyomingóó,€460€U.S.€at€243).€€Moreover,€nothing€was€said€inÐ h¸ ÐòòKimelóó€to€question€òòWyomingóó's€determination€that€Congress€hadÐ d Ðextended€the€ADEA€to€cover€state€and€local€governments€and€theirÐ À Ðemployees€in€addition€to€private€firms€and€individuals.€€Nor€didÐ l¼ ÐòòKimelóó€alter€òòWyomingóó's€holding€that€the€ADEA's€regulation€of€stateÐ h Ðand€local€government€workers€did€not€violate€the€Tenth€Amendment€orÐ Ä Ðother€provisions€of€the€Constitution.€€òòWyomingóó,€460€U.S.€at€232„Ð pÀ  Ð243.€€All€that€òòKimelóó€held€was€that€„„€although€the€ADEA€remained€aÐ !l" Ðvalid€exercise€of€Congress's€power€under€the€Commerce€Clause€„„Ð È"$ Ðthis€fact€alone€did€not,€and€could€not,€enable€Congress€to€overrideÐ t$Ä& Ða€state's€Eleventh€Amendment€immunity€against€suit.€€528€U.S.€atÐ  &p!( Ð91.€€Hence€òòKimelóó€did€not€declare€the€standards€of€the€ADEA€invalidÐ Ì'#* Ðnor€inapplicable€as€they€pertained€to€the€states,€but€simplyÐ x)È$, Ðendorsed€the€rights€of€states€and€political€subdivisions€to€enforceÐ $+t&. Ðagainst€ADEA€lawsuits€the€immunity€conferred€by€the€EleventhÐ ° ÐAmendment.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€Eleventh€Amendment,€however,€does€not€confer€upon€theÐ X Ðstates€a€total€immunity€against€suit.€€òòAldenóó€v.€òòMaineóó,€527€U.S.Ð ´  Ð706,€755€(1999).€€òòKimelóó€involved€a€private€action€for€monetaryÐ ` ° Ðdamages.€€Neither€òòKimelóó,€nor€Eleventh€Amendment€jurisprudence,Ð  \  Ðprevents€individuals,€such€as€the€òòGatelyóó€plaintiffs,€from€obtainingÐ ¸  Ðinjunctive€relief€against€a€state€based€upon€the€ADEA€pursuant€toÐ d´  ÐòòEx€parte€Youngóó,€209€U.S.€123€(1908).€€òòSeeóó€òòBd.€of€Trs.€of€the€Univ.Ð `  Ðof€Ala.óó€v.€òòGarrettóó,€531€U.S.€356,€374€n.9€(2001)€(privateÐ ¼  Ðindividuals€may€sue€for€injunctive€relief€to€enforce€the€standardsÐ h¸ Ðof€the€ADA€under€òòEx€parte€Youngóó);€òòLaroóó€v.€òòNew€Hampshireóó,€259€F.3dÐ d Ð1,€17€(1st€Cir.€2001).Ð À Ðà ` àIndeed,€the€United€States€itself€may€enforce€theÐ l¼ Ðstandards€of€the€ADEA€against€states€both€in€actions€for€moneyÐ h Ðdamages€and€for€injunctive€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòGarrettóó,€531€U.S.€at€374Ð Ä Ðn.9;€òòAldenóó,€527€U.S.€at€755;€òòLaroóó,€259€F.3d€at€17.€€The€EEOC,€anÐ pÀ  Ðagency€of€the€United€States,€was€a€party€to€the€suit€that€resultedÐ !l" Ðin€the€issuance€of€the€permanent€injunction€that€SPARA€now€seeks€toÐ È"$ Ðinvalidate.€€In€òòAldenóó€the€Court€stated€that€"[i]n€ratifying€theÐ t$Ä& Ðconstitution,€the€States€consented€to€suits€brought€by€other€StatesÐ  &p!( Ðor€by€the€Federal€Government."€€527€U.S.€at€755.€€Thus,€even€thoughÐ Ì'#* Ðprivate€individuals€are€precluded€by€the€Eleventh€Amendment€fromÐ x)È$, Ðsuing€the€Commonwealth€for€money€damages€for€violations€of€theÐ $+t&. ÐADEA,€the€provisions€of€the€ADEA€remain€fully€applicable€and€may€beÐ ° Ðenforced€against€the€Commonwealth€in€the€manner€described.€€òòKimelóóÐ \¬ Ðhas€not€so€altered€the€legal€landscape€as€to€invalidate€theÐ X Ðpermanent€injunction€issued€in€òòGatelyóó.€€Ð ´  Ðò òB.à0 ` àRemaining€Claimsó óÐ` °` (#` (# Ðà ` àAbsent€its€argument€that€òòKimelóó€removed€the€legal€basisÐ ( x  Ðfor€the€1998€permanent€injunction,€SPARA's€complaint€is€essentiallyÐ Ô$  Ða€renewed€attack€upon€the€underlying€merits€of€the€injunction.€Ð €Ð  ÐSPARA's€primary€contention€is€that€the€mandatory€retirement€age€ofÐ ,|  Ð55€found€in€Mass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€32,€ðð€6(3)(a),€does€not€violate€theÐ Ø( ÐADEA€because€it€is€in€fact€allowed€(as€to€certain€officers)€by€theÐ „Ô Ðsafe„harbor€provision€of€the€ADEA,€29€U.S.C.€ðð€623(j)€(2000).€Ð 0€ ÐSPARA€also€contends€that€the€State€Officials'€continued€adherenceÐ Ü, Ðto€the€injunction€violates€its€members'€civil€rights.€Ð ˆØ Ðà ` àThe€district€court€held€that€SPARA€was€barred€by€resÐ 4„ Ðjudicata€from€attempting€to€litigate€this€issue.€€òòState€Police€forÐ à0 ÐAutomatic€Ret.€Ass'nóó,€164€F.€Supp.€2d€at€155.€€While€we€agree€withÐ ŒÜ  Ðthe€district€court€that€SPARA's€complaint€must€be€dismissed,€andÐ 8!ˆ" Ðwhile€we€do€not€necessarily€reject€the€district€court's€resÐ ä"4$ Ðjudicata€analysis,€we€affirm€on€somewhat€different€grounds.€Ð $à& ÐòòTicketmaster-New€York,€Inc.óó€v.€òòAliotoóó,€26€F.3d€201,€204€(1st€Cir.Ð <&Œ!( Ð1994).€€We€conclude€that€SPARA's€complaint€is€devoid€of€merit€andÐ è'8#* Ðlacks€any€basis€on€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð ”)ä$, Ð12(b)(6).€Ð @+&. Ðà ` àSPARA€contends€that€the€ADEA's€safe„harbor€provisionÐ ° Ðshould€be€read€to€save€the€state's€mandatory€retirement€age€of€55€Ð \¬ Ðas€applied€to€those€officers€who€were€in€the€former€state€policeÐ X Ðdivision€at€the€time€it€was€merged€with€the€three€other€policeÐ ´  Ðforces.€€SPARA€is€apparently€arguing€that,€by€failing€to€apply€theÐ ` ° Ðstate's€55„year€mandatory€retirement€age€to€former€members€of€theÐ  \  Ðold€state€police€division,€the€Commonwealth€is€permitting€theseÐ ¸  Ðofficers€to€stay€longer€than€they€should,€thereby€filling€positionsÐ d´  Ðinto€which€SPARA's€members,€or€some€of€them,€might€otherwise€beÐ `  Ðpromoted.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àThe€safe„harbor€provision€in€effect€at€the€time€of€theÐ h¸ ÐòòGatelyóóaction€provided:€Ð d ÐÓÓà8 ` à[i]t€shall€not€be€unlawful€for€an€employerÐ À Ðwhich€is€a€State€.€.€.€to€discharge€anyÐ –æ Ðindividual€because€of€such€individual's€age€ifÐ l¼ Ðsuch€action€is€taken€„„ÐB’` x` x Ðà8 ` à(1)€with€respect€to€the€employment€of€anÐ h Ðindividual€.€.€.€as€a€law€enforcement€officerÐ î> Ðand€the€individual€has€attained€the€ageÐ Ä Ðof...€retirement€in€effect€under€applicableÐ šê ÐState€or€local€law€on€March€3,€1983;€andÐpÀ ` x` x ÐÓ¼qÓÓÓà8 ` à(2)€pursuant€to€a€bona€fide€.€.€.€retirementÐ F –! Ðplan€that€is€not€subterfuge€to€evade€theÐ !l" Ðpurposes€of€this€chapter.Ðò!B#` x` x ÐÓ5tÓÌ29€U.S.C.€ðð€623(j).Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àThe€provision€was€initially€enacted€to€give€states€aÐ  &p!( Ðgrace€period€of€seven€years€during€which€time€certain€retirementÐ Ì'#* Ðplans€for€law€enforcement€officials€would€be€exempted€from€theÐ x)È$, ÐADEA's€reach.€€òòGatelyóó,€2€F.3d€at€1229.€€We€concluded€in€òòGatelyóóÐ $+t&. Ðthat,€under€the€exemption,€states€were€free€to€raise€or€eliminateÐ ° Ðpre„March€3,€1983€mandatory€retirement€ages€for€law€enforcementÐ \¬ Ðofficials€but€they€could€not€lower€retirement€ages€below€what€wasÐ X Ðin€effect€on€that€date.€€òòId.óó€€In€essence,€the€retirement€ageÐ ´  Ðrequirements€of€a€plan€in€effect€as€of€March€3,€1983€became€theÐ ` ° Ðfloor€for€legally€valid€plans€adopted€by€a€state.€€òòId.óó€(citing€132Ð  \  ÐCong.€Rec.€S16850„02€(daily€ed.€Oct.€6,€1986)).€Ð ¸  Ðà ` àSPARA€now€concedes,€as€was€held€in€òòGatelyóó,€that€theÐ d´  Ðmandatory€retirement€age€contained€in€ðð€6(3)(a),€as€applied€to€theÐ `  ÐòòGatelyóó€plaintiffs,€was€not€saved€by€the€safe„harbor€provisionÐ ¼  Ðcontained€in€ðð€623(j).€€The€òòGatelyóó€plaintiffs€consisted€of€formerÐ h¸ Ðmembers€of€the€MDC€Police,€the€Capitol€Police,€and€the€RegistryÐ d ÐPolice€whose€retirement€age€had€been€65.€€The€age„55€statute,Ð À Ðadopted€in€1991€as€part€of€the€consolidation€of€the€four€stateÐ l¼ Ðpolice€forces,€impermissibly€lowered€the€retirement€age€of€thoseÐ h Ðplaintiffs.€€SPARA€argues,€however,€that€the€age„55€age€capÐ Ä Ðcontained€in€ðð€6(3)(a),€as€applied€to€former€troopers€in€the€oldÐ pÀ  Ðstate€police€division,€whose€retirement€age€in€1983€was€50,€wasÐ !l" Ðprotected€by€the€exemption€contained€in€ðð€623(j).Ð È"$ Ðà ` àThe€difficulty€with€this€argument€is€that€the€safe„harborÐ t$Ä& Ðprovision€merely€permits€"an€employee€which€is€a€State"€toÐ  &p!( Ðgrandfather€pre„March€3,€1983,€state€retirement€standards.€€It€doesÐ Ì'#* Ðnot€require€a€state€to€continue€to€enforce€such€age„basedÐ x)È$, Ðstandards,€nor€does€it€empower€individual€state€employees€to€forceÐ $+t&. Ðthe€state€to€do€so.€€Having€found€that€the€mandatory€age„55Ð ° Ðretirement€law€enacted€as€part€of€the€reorganization€of€theÐ \¬ Ðenlarged€State€Police€Department€violated€the€ADEA€with€respect€toÐ X Ðcertain€of€its€members,€the€district€court€understandably€enjoinedÐ ´  Ðenforcement€of€the€entire€law€rather€than€attempting€to€narrow€it,Ð ` ° Ðas€SPARA€would€prefer,€so€that€it€would€still€apply€to€someÐ  \  Ðofficers€within€the€new€department€although€not€others.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð ¸  ÐòòVirginiaóó€v.€òòAm.€Booksellers€Ass'nóó,€484€U.S.€383,€397€(1988)Ð d´  Ð(stating€"we€will€not€rewrite€a€state€law€to€conform€it€toÐ `  Ðconstitutional€requirements");€òòConsol.€Cigar€Corp.óó€v.€òòReillyóó,€218Ð ¼  ÐF.3d€30,€56€(1st€Cir.€2000)€(stating€courts€must€"take€care€not€toÐ h¸ Ðtrample€legislative€or€executive€province€of€state€authorities€byÐ d Ðmaking€unduly€substantive€additions€or€changes€to€laws€andÐ À Ðregulations"),€òòrev'd€in€part€on€other€grounds€sub€nom.óó,€òòLorillardÐ l¼ ÐTobacco€Co.óó€v.€òòReillyóó,€533€U.S.€525€(2001).€€The€Commonwealth,Ð h Ðrepresented€in€the€òòGatelyóó€action€by€its€Attorney€General,€chose€notÐ Ä Ðto€appeal€from€the€broadly„worded€injunction,€accepting€the€federalÐ pÀ  Ðcourt's€determination€that€ðð€6(3)(a)€was,€in€effect,€non„severable,Ð !l" Ði.e.,€could€not€reasonably€be€applied€to€the€reorganized€divisionÐ È"$ Ðin€a€splintered€fashion€so€as€to€permit€the€forced€retirement€ofÐ t$Ä& Ðcertain€former€state€troopers€while€all€others€would€be€free€fromÐ  &p!( Ðany€retirement€age€limit.€€Certainly€both€the€district€court€andÐ Ì'#* Ðthe€Commonwealth€were€entitled€to€doubt€that€the€MassachusettsÐ x)È$, Ðlegislature€would€have€wanted€the€age„55€retirement€law€„„€that€theÐ $+t&. Ðlegislature€had€written€expressly€to€apply€to€the€entire€new€stateÐ ° Ðpolice€department€„„€to€remain€in€effect€only€with€respect€to€someÐ \¬ Ðofficers€while€others€enjoyed€the€full€protections€of€the€ADEA.€Ð X ÐòòCf.óó€òòSeminole€Tribe€of€Fla.óó€v.€òòFloridaóó,€517€U.S.€44,€75€(1996)Ð ´  Ð(noting€that€a€federal€court€is€not€free€to€rewrite€a€law€"toÐ ` ° Ðapproximate€what€we€think€Congress€might€have€wanted€had€it€knownÐ  \  Ðthat€[the€statute]€was€beyond€its€authority").€€It€is€notable€thatÐ ¸  Ðthe€òòGatelyóó€court€afforded€the€parties€time€to€return€to€theÐ d´  ÐMassachusetts€legislature€in€hopes€of€securing€legislative€redressÐ `  Є„€a€vain€hope,€as€matters€evolved.€Ð ¼  Ðà ` àIn€any€event,€whether€to€pursue€the€goal€SPARA€now€seeksÐ h¸ Ðand€attempt€to€persuade€the€federal€court€to€narrow€its€injunctionÐ d Ðso€as€to€save€the€retirement€age€selectively€under€the€ADEA's€safe„Ð À Ðharbor€provision€in€the€case€of€certain€former€state€troopers€wasÐ l¼ Ða€decision€for€the€Commonwealth€alone€to€make.׃,×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòClerk€ofÐ h ÐSuperior€Courtóó€v.€òòTreasurer€and€Receiver€Gen.óó,€437€N.E.2d€158,€163Ð ° Ð(Mass.€1982)€("The€Attorney€General€alone€has€control€over€theÐ \¬ Ðconduct€of€litigation€involving€the€Commonwealth,€its€agencies,€andÐ X Ðofficers.").€€The€safe„harbor€provision€permits€states€alone€toÐ ´  Ðgrandfather€pre„March€3,€1983€retirement€laws.€€As€a€narrowÐ ` ° Ðexception€to€ADEA's€broad€prohibition€of€mandatory€age„basedÐ  \  Ðretirement,€it€allows€states,€if€they€choose,€to€continue€toÐ ¸  Ðenforce€against€relevant€law€enforcement€officers€certain€earlierÐ d´  Ðage„based€retirement€laws€(or€to€create€new€laws€consistent€withÐ `  Ðthe€mandates€of€the€statute).€€The€language€of€ðð€623(j)€isÐ ¼  Ðpermissive€not€mandatory.€€The€Commonwealth's€and€the€StateÐ h¸ ÐOfficials'€adherence€to€the€permanent€injunction€in€no€way€violatesÐ d Ððð€623(j)€much€less€any€other€provision€of€the€ADEA.€€MassachusettsÐ À Ðfought€hard€in€òòGatelyóó€to€uphold€the€validity€of€the€age„55Ð l¼ Ðretirement€law€as€a€whole;€but€once€the€òòGatelyóó€plaintiffs€prevailedÐ h Ðthe€Commonwealth€was€entitled€to€accept,€without€further€appeal,Ð Ä Ðthe€court's€determination€that€the€age„55€law€should€not€stand€onÐ pÀ  Ða€fragmented€basis.€€Ð !l" Ðà ` àNot€only€are€the€grandfather€rights€in€ðð€623(j)€expresslyÐ È"$ Ðaccorded€to€the€states€alone,€but€neither€ðð€623(j),€nor€any€otherÐ t$Ä& Ðpart€of€the€ADEA,€makes€provision€for€a€private€cause€of€action€inÐ  &p!( Ðthe€case€of€individual€officers€or€classes€of€officers€who€wish€toÐ Ì'#* Ðretain€state€age„based€retirement€laws.€€Section€626(c)(1)€of€theÐ ° ÐADEA€allows€"any€person€aggrieved€[to]€bring€a€civil€action€in€anyÐ \¬ Ðcourt€of€competent€jurisdiction€for€such€legal€or€equitable€reliefÐ X Ðas€will€effectuate€the€purposes€of€this€chapter."€€The€purpose€ofÐ ´  Ðthe€ADEA€is€to€eliminate€age€discrimination€in€the€workplace.€Ð ` ° ÐòòMcKennonóó€v.€òòNashville€Banner€Publ'g€Co.óó,€513€U.S.€352€(1995);Ð  \  ÐòòLaveryóó€v.€òòMarshóó,€918€F.2d€1022,€1025€(1st€Cir.€1990).€€SPARA'sÐ ¸  Ðdesire€to€preempt€ðð€623(j)€to€its€own€uses,€so€as€to€grandfather€aÐ d´  Ðstate€retirement€law€that€is€otherwise€in€contravention€of€the€ADEAÐ `  Ðdoes€not€advance€this€purpose.€€The€ADEA€has€been€said€not€toÐ ¼  Ðprevent€an€employer€from€treating€older€persons€more€generouslyÐ h¸ Ðthan€others.€€òòSchuleróó€v.€òòPolaroid€Corp.óó,€848€F.2d€276,€278€(1stÐ d ÐCir.€1988)€(Breyer,€C.J.).€€Additionally,€it€is€clear€that€ðð€623(j)Ð À Ðdoes€not€provide€for€an€implied€cause€of€action€that€would€allowÐ l¼ Ðprivate€litigants€to€force€states,€against€their€will,€to€use€theÐ h Ðprotections€offered€in€the€safe„harbor€provision.€€òòSeeóó€òòMerrillÐ Ä ÐLynch,€Pierce,€Fenner€&€Smith,€Inc.óó€v.€òòCurranóó,€456€U.S.€353,€375-78Ð pÀ  Ð(1982);€òòCannonóó€v.€òòUniv.€of€Chicagoóó,€441€U.S.€677,€698-99€(1979);Ð !l" ÐòòCortóó€v.€òòAshóó,€422€U.S.€66,€78€(1975).€Ð È"$ Ðà ` àFurthermore,€SPARA€has€failed€to€explain€how€the€StateÐ t$Ä& ÐOfficials€continued€adherence€to€the€terms€of€the€injunctionÐ  &p!( Ðviolates€any€cognizable€statutory€or€constitutional€rights€of€itsÐ Ì'#* Ðmembers.€€SPARA€complains€that€the€State€Officials€are€deprivingÐ x)È$, Ðits€members€"of€promotions€to€the€position€of€sergeant,€lieutenant,Ð $+t&. Ðand€captain€because€the€order€prohibits€the€implementation€of€theÐ ° Ðmandatory€retirement€age€of€55."€€It€is€unclear€from€where€SPARAÐ \¬ Ðwould€have€us€find€such€a€"right€to€promotion"€in€this€context.€Ð X ÐSPARA€does€not€allege€that€any€federal€or€state€statute€affordsÐ ´  Ðthem€a€legal€right€to€receive€as€many€promotions€as€they€would€haveÐ ` ° Ðreceived€if€the€mandatory€retirement€policy€they€favor€were€inÐ  \  Ðeffect.€€No€relevant€precedent€for€such€a€right€in€federal€or€stateÐ ¸  Ðlaw€has€been€called€to€our€attention.€Ð d´  Ðà ` àSPARA€also€broadly€alleges€that€the€State€Officials'Ð `  Ðadherence€to€the€permanent€injunction€violates€its€members'€equalÐ ¼  Ðprotection€rights.€€To€establish€an€equal€protection€claim,€SPARAÐ h¸ Ðmust€allege€that€its€members€have€"been€intentionally€treatedÐ d Ðdifferently€and€there€is€no€rational€basis€for€the€difference€inÐ À Ðtreatment."€€òòVillage€of€Willow€Brookóó€v.€òòOlechóó,€528€U.S.€562,€564Ð l¼ Ð(2000)€(per€curiam).€€SPARA€has€not€alleged€that€similarly€situatedÐ h Ðstate€police€officers€are€being€promoted€and€its€members€are€not.€Ð Ä ÐThe€premise€of€SPARA's€complaint€is€that€the€lack€of€a€mandatoryÐ pÀ  Ðretirement€for€certain€officers€is€slowing€the€advancement€of€òòallóóÐ !l" Ðstate€police€officers.€€SPARA€has€simply€failed€to€allege€the€factsÐ È"$ Ðnecessary€to€support€an€equal€protection€claim.€€òòSeeóó€òòFiresideÐ t$Ä& ÐNissan,€Inc.óó€v.€òòFanningóó,€30€F.3d€206,€219€(1st€Cir.€1994).Ð  &p!( ÐÓ€ (º½88ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òÝ‚3£9£ÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  ÚCÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝConclusionó ó݃3£9£i£ÝŒÐÌ'#*` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€district€court€is€òòò òaffirmedóóó ó.Ð ”)ä$, Ð