posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 12:12 PM
by
Lou Michels
Old, Bold, Pilots, Part II
Following up on a previous post about the mandatory retirement age for commercial and corporate pilots, a federal court ruled that there is no triable issue of age discrimination when a company forces its pilots to retire at age 60. EEOC v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 3:06-cv-1732 (N.D. Texas April 28, 2008)
The employer, Exxon, maintains a fleet of private aircraft, including nine sophisticated jets to transfer its employees and corporate guests worldwide. At the time the case was filed, Exxon's internal policy barred pilots from flying its aircraft after age 60, and it forced pilots to retire when they reached that age. The policy mirrored the FAA's age-60 rule, which grounds commercial pilots of passenger aircraft at the same age (Exxon has amended its policy to mirror the recent statutory mandated retirement age of 65.)
The EEOC sued to invalidate this policy on behalf of six pilots who were forced to retire at age 60. Exxon asserted a bona fide occupational qualification ("BFOQ") defense, based on its claim that the age limit was reasonably necessary to the essence of its business.
Exxon's reliance on the FAA rule to support its policy is justified where the rationale asserted by the FAA for grounding pilots at that age is readily applicable to the world of corporate jet flying. The EEOC attempted to argue that the duties of commercial pilots and corporate pilots were so different that age could not be a BFOQ for the Exxon group.
Notwithstanding the fact that flying a corporate jet is frequently even more demanding than flying a larger and more stable passenger airliner, the EEOC tried to argue a distinction based on the differences between the airplanes. The Commission pointed out the differences in the lavatories on the airplanes, the type of coffee provided on board and the towels used on the plane. Why on earth the Commission would think that would be convincing evidence in an age discrimination case about flying a jet is beyond me; I suspect what it really did was point out the weakness of their arguments in the areas where it mattered.
The court would have none of it, noting that there was no material difference, at least for purposes of this inquiry, between the planes used by Exxon and the planes used by commercial airlines.
The result of this is not surprising; but this is one of the few areas where age may be a BFOQ. We're going to see more of these kinds of age-related claims as our older workforce begins to push the edge of the envelope in areas like flying, vehicle operation, and the like.