Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell
1985 U.S. LEXIS 107, 86 L. Ed. 2d 321, 472 U.S. 400 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense is an extremely narrow exception that requires an employer to prove that an age-based job qualification is reasonably necessary to the essence of its business and that it is compelled to rely on age as a proxy for the qualification.
Facts:
- Western Air Lines, Inc. had a policy requiring its flight engineers to retire at age 60.
- A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation prohibits pilots and first officers from serving on commercial flights after reaching age 60, but the FAA has explicitly declined to set a mandatory retirement age for flight engineers.
- In 1978, Charles Criswell and Rulon Starley, both captains for Western, turned 60 and sought to be reassigned to flight engineer positions to avoid mandatory retirement under the FAA pilot rule.
- Albert Ron, a career flight engineer for Western, was also forced to retire in 1978 upon his 60th birthday.
- Western denied the requests from Criswell and Starley and forced all three men to retire, citing its company retirement plan's age-60 rule.
- The employees presented evidence that other major commercial airlines employed flight engineers over age 60 without any negative impact on safety.
- Expert testimony at trial was conflicting, with the employees' experts stating it was feasible to determine fitness to fly on an individualized basis through medical examinations, while Western's expert expressed concern about unpredictable cardiovascular events in those over 60.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Criswell, Rulon Starley, and Albert Ron sued Western Air Lines, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging the mandatory retirement policy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
- Western asserted that its age-60 rule was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) and thus permissible under the ADEA.
- A jury in the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The District Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs and granted equitable relief.
- Western Air Lines, Inc., as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Western's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the jury instructions, which required Western Air Lines to prove that its mandatory retirement age for flight engineers was reasonably necessary to the essence of its business and that it was impossible or highly impractical to assess older employees individually, correctly state the law for the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes, the jury instructions correctly stated the law. To establish a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense, an employer must satisfy a two-part test. First, the employer must prove that the challenged age qualification is reasonably necessary to the essence of its business. Second, the employer must prove that it is compelled to use age as a proxy for that qualification by establishing either that (1) all or substantially all individuals over the age limit would be unable to perform the job's duties safely and efficiently, or (2) it is impossible or highly impractical to deal with older employees on an individualized basis. The Court rejected Western's proposed 'rational basis in fact' standard as too lenient and inconsistent with the ADEA's purpose of prohibiting arbitrary age discrimination and promoting individualized assessments. The BFOQ exception is meant to be extremely narrow, and an employer's judgment, particularly when safety is involved, must still be supported by objective evidence and cannot be given complete deference.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the stringent, two-part test from Usery v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. as the controlling standard for the BFOQ defense under the ADEA, especially in cases involving public safety. By rejecting a more deferential 'rational basis' standard, the Court significantly raised the evidentiary bar for employers seeking to justify age-based employment policies. The ruling underscores Congress's intent to prioritize individualized assessment over age-based stereotypes, forcing employers in safety-sensitive industries to prove with objective evidence that they cannot feasibly test older workers for fitness, rather than simply relying on general assumptions about age and ability.
