Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell
Headline: Court rejects airline’s age-60 mandatory retirement for flight engineers, upholds jury verdict, and narrows when employers may use age as a safety-based job requirement affecting crew members
Holding: The Court held that the airline’s age-60 rule for flight engineers was not justified under the ADEA’s narrow BFOQ safety exception and affirmed the jury’s rejection of Western’s safety defense.
- Makes it harder for airlines to force flight engineers to retire at 60.
- Requires employers to prove age is truly necessary for safety, not merely convenient.
- Affirms jury fact-finding in age-discrimination safety disputes.
Summary
Background
An airline required its flight engineers to retire at age 60. Three crew members — two captains who tried to transfer to flight engineer jobs and a career flight engineer — challenged the rule under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which generally protects workers between ages 40 and 70. A jury found the airline’s rule was not a legitimate safety-based exception, and the airline appealed, arguing the jury instructions should have favored its safety judgment and the FAA’s pilot age rule.
Reasoning
The Court explained that the ADEA’s exception allowing age as a job qualification (a BFOQ) is very narrow. It endorsed a two-part test: the employer must show either that all or nearly all persons above the age cannot safely perform the job, or that it is impossible or highly impractical to decide fitness by individualized testing. The FAA rule barring pilots at 60 was relevant but not conclusive for flight engineers. The Court rejected the airline’s proposed “rational basis” instruction that would have given wide deference to the employer or its experts. Because the airline failed to prove the strict showing required, the jury verdict for the employees was upheld.
Real world impact
The decision limits employers’ ability to rely on age alone for safety reasons and keeps the factfinder (the jury) responsible for weighing medical and industry evidence. Airlines and other employers must show strong, job-specific proof before using age as a safety cutoff, and they cannot simply point to industry rules or expert testimony to avoid individualized assessment.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?