context: With respect to Gluba's first assertion, we have stated that "[i]t is well settled that legislative classifications based upon age are not suspect classifications" for equal protection purposes. Similarly, courts have not subjected classifications based on disability to heightened scrutiny.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 645 N.W.2d 411, 411
citation_a.parenthetical: applying rational basis review to a classification based on disability when neither party argued for heightened scrutiny
citation_a.sentence: See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 522, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004) (“[Classifications based on disability violate [equal protection] if they lack a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.”); see also Kolton, 645 N.W.2d at 411 (applying rational basis review to a classification based on disability when neither party argued for heightened scrutiny).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Classifications based on disability violate [equal protection] if they lack a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose."
citation_b.sentence: See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 522, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004) (“[Classifications based on disability violate [equal protection] if they lack a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.”); see also Kolton, 645 N.W.2d at 411 (applying rational basis review to a classification based on disability when neither party argued for heightened scrutiny).