Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Boeing in an action brought by the EEOC under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act challenging Boeing’s removal of pilots from active flight duty at age 60. The court held that the FAA’s age-60 rule was relevant evidence but not conclusive proof of a bona fide occupational qualification, and that disputed factual issues concerning individualized testing and the similarities between Boeing and commercial airline pilots required trial. The court affirmed the denial of the EEOC’s motion to amend its complaint.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the FAA's age-sixty regulation conclusively established that being under sixty was a bona fide occupational qualification for Boeing pilots.
- Whether disputed evidence concerning the feasibility of individualized testing created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment on Boeing's BFOQ defense.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the EEOC leave to amend its complaint to assert the consequences of Boeing's age-sixty policy as an independent ADEA violation.
Holdings
- The FAA's Age-60 Rule is relevant evidence of a BFOQ but is not conclusive as a matter of law and does not relieve Boeing of proving the ADEA's BFOQ requirements.
- Summary judgment for Boeing was improper because the record contained genuine disputes concerning whether individualized testing could detect impairments in pilots age sixty or older and whether such testing was highly impractical.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the EEOC's motion to amend insofar as the amendment would have added an independent ADEA claim based on the consequences of Boeing's age-sixty rule.
Key quotations
“The statute vests responsibility for determining the validity of a BFOQ in the courts. In the exercise of that responsibility a court may consider relevant factfinding by Congress or by an executive agency, but the court may not abdicate its factfinding function to either of the other branches.” (¶ 20)
“Although the FAA's rule for pilots, adopted for safety reasons, is relevant evidence in the airline's BFOQ defense, it is not to be accorded conclusive weight.” (¶ 22)
“Congress expressly decided that problems involving age discrimination in employment should be resolved on a 'case-by-case basis' by proof to a jury.” (¶ 14)
Factual background
Boeing removed pilots from active flight duty at age sixty, and Boeing admitted that the policy discriminated on the basis of age. Boeing defended the policy under the ADEA's bona fide occupational qualification exception, relying on the FAA regulation barring commercial Part 121 pilots from flying after reaching age sixty. The EEOC offered expert and other evidence that impairments relevant to safe piloting could be detected through individualized testing, that Boeing had previously employed pilots over sixty without incident, and that Boeing's pilots performed materially varied duties.
Procedural history
The district court held that the FAA's age-sixty regulation, together with the similarity between Boeing pilots and commercial airline pilots, established a bona fide occupational qualification as a matter of law and granted Boeing summary judgment. It also denied the EEOC's motion to amend to assert consequences of Boeing's age-sixty policy as an independent ADEA violation. The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment because disputed factual issues concerning individualized testing and the duties of Boeing pilots required trial, affirmed denial of leave to amend, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings and trial on the factual issues relevant to Boeing's BFOQ defense, including whether individualized testing of pilots age sixty or older was impossible or highly impractical. The denial of leave to amend was affirmed, although the district court could reconsider that motion in light of changed circumstances resulting from the appeal.