make tests a condition precedent to the operation of the exemption. Because HHS has not promulgated the regulations called for by the statute, the City could not violate § 623(j)(l) by failing to provide fitness tests before enforcing the Ordinance. 2. Timing and Scope The 2000 Ordinance covers all “sworn members” of the police department and all members of the “uniformed service” of the fire department, a broader class than the members of the “career service” covered by the ordinance in effect in 1983. The plaintiffs have argued, as support for their allegations of subterfuge, see below, that the City impermissibly broadened the scope of the Ordinance beyond its coverage as of March 3, 1983, in violation of § 623(j)(l)(A). See Roche v. City of Chicago, 24 F.3d 882, 884 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). However, Roche was decided before the 1996
recognizing class of one equal protection claim where ordinance targeted a single individual on basis that state action was irrational and arbitrary holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification holding that where plaintiff was in class of employees not covered by ordinance in effect on march 3 1983  623j exemption was unavailable holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case holding that sellers of covered calls are not atypical class representatives