Summary
The Supreme Court held that Trans World Airlines violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by denying age-disqualified captains the same transfer or "bumping" privileges afforded to captains disqualified for other reasons. The Court rejected the asserted bona fide occupational qualification and bona fide seniority system defenses. It further held that the violation was not willful because TWA had acted reasonably and in good faith, so the respondents were not entitled to liquidated or double damages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether TWA's policy of requiring age-disqualified captains to use bidding procedures, while allowing captains disqualified for other reasons to bump less senior flight engineers, violated the ADEA's prohibition on discrimination with respect to a privilege of employment.
- Whether TWA could justify the discriminatory transfer policy under the ADEA's bona fide occupational qualification defense.
- Whether the policy was protected as part of a bona fide seniority system under the ADEA.
- What standard defines a willful ADEA violation for purposes of liquidated or double damages.
- Whether TWA's violation was willful under that standard.
Holdings
- An employer that grants captains disqualified for reasons other than age the privilege of automatically bumping less senior flight engineers may not deny that same privilege to captains disqualified because of age. TWA's age-based transfer policy violated ADEA § 4(a)(1).
- The BFOQ defense did not justify TWA's discriminatory transfer policy because the relevant position was flight engineer, and age was not a bona fide occupational qualification for that position.
- The bona fide seniority system defense was unavailable because a seniority system that permits involuntary retirement of protected individuals because of age is not bona fide under the ADEA.
- For purposes of liquidated damages under ADEA § 7(b), a violation is willful when the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA; mere knowledge that the ADEA might apply is insufficient.
- TWA's violation was not willful because TWA sought legal advice, attempted in good faith to comply with the amended ADEA, and did not act with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the unlawfulness of the discriminatory transfer policy.
Key quotations
“A benefit that is part and parcel of the employment relationship may not be doled out in a discriminatory fashion, even if the employer would be free. . . not to provide the benefit at all.” (469 U.S. at 121)
“There simply is no evidence that TWA acted in "reckless disregard" of the requirements of the ADEA.” (469 U.S. at 130)
Factual background
TWA and ALPA maintained a policy requiring cockpit employees to retire at age 60, while permitting captains disqualified for reasons other than age to transfer automatically or bump less senior flight engineers. After the 1978 ADEA amendments, TWA allowed employees already in flight-engineer status at age 60 to continue working but required age-disqualified captains to obtain that status through bidding procedures. Thurston, Clark, and Parkhill were retired at age 60 after being denied an equivalent bumping privilege, although captains disqualified for other reasons received that privilege.
Procedural history
Thurston, Clark, and Parkhill sued TWA and ALPA in the Southern District of New York, arguing that TWA's transfer policy unlawfully denied age-disqualified captains the ability to bump less senior flight engineers. The District Court granted defendants summary judgment. The Second Circuit reversed, held that the policy violated the ADEA, and awarded liquidated damages based on a finding of willfulness. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both consolidated matters, affirmed the liability determination, and reversed the liquidated-damages determination.