Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston et al.
469 U.S. 111 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's policy violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) if it denies a privilege of employment to older employees that it grants to younger employees disqualified for other reasons. A violation is 'willful' for the purpose of awarding liquidated damages only if the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.
Facts:
- Trans World Airlines (TWA) had a policy allowing captains disqualified from flying for reasons like medical issues or workforce reduction to automatically 'bump' less senior flight engineers to take their positions.
- A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation prohibits individuals from serving as airline captains after reaching age 60.
- In 1978, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was amended to prohibit most mandatory retirements before age 70.
- In response, TWA implemented a new policy requiring captains turning 60 to use a bidding system to obtain a flight engineer position if a vacancy was available.
- Under TWA's new policy, if no flight engineer vacancy became available through the bidding process before a captain's 60th birthday, the captain was forced to retire.
- Respondents Harold Thurston, Christopher J. Clark, and Clifton A. Parkhill were TWA captains who, upon turning 60, were denied the ability to automatically bump into flight engineer roles and were subsequently forced to retire.
Procedural Posture:
- Harold Thurston and other captains (plaintiffs) sued Trans World Airlines (TWA) and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the case on behalf of other discharged captains.
- The District Court, a trial court, granted summary judgment in favor of TWA and ALPA, holding the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, finding TWA's policy was discriminatory on its face and that TWA's violation was 'willful,' thus entitling the plaintiffs to liquidated damages.
- TWA and ALPA (petitioners) sought, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted, a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an airline's policy that permits captains disqualified for reasons other than age to automatically transfer to flight engineer positions, while denying this option to captains disqualified by age, violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)? And, is a violation of the ADEA 'willful' if the employer was merely aware of the potential applicability of the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, as to the first question; No, as to the second. The airline's policy violates the ADEA, but the violation was not willful. The policy is discriminatory on its face because it treats captains disqualified by age less favorably than those disqualified for other reasons, denying them a 'privilege of employment.' The McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable here because the plaintiffs presented direct, not circumstantial, evidence of discrimination. TWA's bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense fails because the BFOQ for the captain position (age 60) is irrelevant to the qualifications for the flight engineer position they sought. However, the violation was not willful because TWA did not know its policy was illegal, nor did it show reckless disregard for its obligations under the ADEA; rather, the record shows TWA acted in good faith, consulting with lawyers and the union to attempt to comply with the new law. The proper standard for willfulness is whether 'the employer...knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA,' not merely that the employer was aware of the ADEA's existence.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing two key principles in age discrimination law. First, it clarifies that when a policy is discriminatory on its face, a plaintiff does not need to satisfy the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework designed for cases based on circumstantial evidence. Second, and more importantly, the Court established the 'knew or showed reckless disregard' standard for willfulness under the ADEA, resolving a circuit split. This sets a higher bar for plaintiffs seeking liquidated (double) damages, requiring more than mere employer awareness of the law, thereby creating a two-tiered liability scheme.
Unlock the full brief for Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston et al.