were terminated on December 31, 2000, pursuant to the City’s mandatory retirement ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which establishes sixty-three years as the maximum age for sworn members of the Police Department and for members of the uniformed service of the Fire Department. Chicago Municipal Code (“CMC”) § 2-152-140. The City did not give the plaintiffs an opportunity to take physical fitness tests to demonstrate that they could still meet the fitness requirements of the job. Ordinarily, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, class certification should be addressed before any consideration of the merits, but the ADEA class action is not subject to Rule 23, see 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (incorporating opt-in procedures under 29 U.S.C. § 216); Tice v. American Airlines, Inc., 162 F.3d 966, 973 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), so I may address the merits of these claims
holding that adea class actions are optin actions under  216b not optout actions subject to rule 23 holding that the eeocs enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to rule 23 holding that actions under  727 are factually different from actions under  523 holding that a class action tolls the statute of limitations only for subsequent individual actions not for subsequent class actions holding that the actions were not actions of public and general applicability but were actions directed principally and primarily at plaintiffs