Murnane v. American Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | 80-1186,Nos. 80-1025,s. 80-1025 |
| Citation | 667 F.2d 98,215 U.S.App.D.C. 55 |
| Parties | 26 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1537, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,178, 215 U.S.App.D.C. 55 Edward L. MURNANE, Appellant, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Plaintiff-Intervenor), v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. Edward L. MURNANE, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Plaintiff-Intervenor), Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil No. 78-1217).
Eugene R. Fidell, Washington, D. C., with whom Michael F. McBride, Washington, D. C., was on brief for appellant Murnane.
Karen MacRae Smith, Attorney, E.E.O.C., Washington, D. C., with whom Lutz Alexander Prager, Attorney, E.E.O.C., Washington, D. C., was on brief for appellant E.E.O.C.
Dean Booth, Atlanta, Ga., with whom J. Stanley Hawkins, Atlanta, Ga., was on brief for appellee.
Before WILKEY and MIKVA, Circuit Judges, and GORDON, * Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky.
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior United States District Judge JAMES F. GORDON.
This appeal follows the district court's entry of judgment, following trial, 1 dismissing the complaint of plaintiff-appellant Edward L. Murnane and intervenor Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Appellant alleges that appellee American Airlines (American) discriminated against him on account of age. He initiated this cause under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, Title 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., which declares in relevant part that it shall be unlawful for an employer
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age ....
Id. § 623(a). We affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's complaint.
On April 1, 1976, appellant applied for employment as a Flight Officer with American, stating in his application that he was forty-three years of age. The position of Flight Officer is the first of three employment levels, i.e., Flight Officer, Co-pilot and Captain, which ultimately leads to a captaincy in an American cockpit. However, consideration of appellant for employment never advanced beyond the application phase, nor was he ever accorded an interview with American Airlines. In January of 1977, appellant registered a complaint to American about the lack of attention paid to his application and, being dissatisfied with American's response, then filed with the Department of Labor a complaint in which he alleged that American was discriminating against him in employment on the basis of age. The Department's informal conciliation efforts proved fruitless, and, on November 21, 1977, appellant was notified of his right to sue pursuant to the ADEA. This action was commenced on June 30, 1978.
The gravamen of appellant's claim arises out of appellee's established employment hiring practices. American maintains three cockpit positions, Flight Officer, Co-pilot and Captain. It is American's fixed policy to require all Flight Officers to advance to the position of Captain. No one is hired by American without this goal in mind. This is referred to as American's "up-or-out" policy. More specifically, if a Flight Officer or Co-pilot has received the maximum amount of training required for such position and is not qualified at that juncture to advance to the next post, then it is American's policy to terminate such person's employment. 2 American's procedures do not allow for a career as a Flight Officer or Co-pilot. Finally, American has a general guideline against hiring persons over the age of thirty 3 for the beginning position of Flight Officer.
The district court correctly found that appellant is a member of that class of persons intended to be protected under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 631, and that appellant established a prima facie case of discrimination. However, the district court dismissed appellant's complaint because it went on to find:
1) That American's age forty guideline was a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1), and
2) That appellant would not have been hired in any event in view of the fact that he was not competitively qualified for the position of Flight Officer.
It is these two findings which appellant challenges on appeal. We shall consider each in turn.
The ADEA provides at 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1) that:
It shall not be unlawful for an employer
to take any action otherwise prohibited under (subsection (a)) ... of this section where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business, or where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age....
The issue before this court, then, is whether age is a "bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ) which is "reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of the airline business. We conclude that it is.
The evidence entered at trial indicates that "pilot error" accounts for 90 percent of all aviation accidents, but that the incidence of aviation accidents decreases as the pilot gains experience. Moreover, the district court found "credible and persuasive" evidence that "the best experience an American Captain can have is acquired by flying American aircraft in American's three cockpit positions." 482 F.Supp. at 147 (emphasis in the original). Thus, the safest Captain will be experienced, and as much of that experience as possible will have been with American.
But since it takes at least ten to fifteen years to progress from Flight Officer to Co-pilot to Captain, if appellant were hired as Flight Officer in his forties he would probably not become Captain until his late fifties. The Federal Aviation Administration itself requires retirement at age 60, so that he would be able to serve only briefly as an American Captain before he had to retire. Appellant would then be replaced by another pilot, also new to captaincy in an American cockpit. On the other hand, by limiting its new hiring to relatively young pilots, American thereby ensures that the experience with American of its active Captains will be maximized. This, as we pointed out earlier, maximizes safety. 4
Appellant contends that the district court's findings indicate only a marginal increase in the safety of the passengers on an American aircraft, and that such marginal safety is insufficient to support a blanket age rule. He asserts that a BFOQ cannot be supported by a minimal increase in safety when balanced against the fact that many potential applicants will not be able to pursue their chosen careers. We disagree. 5
Indeed, on the contrary, we find the maximization of safety to be "reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of American Airlines. The safe transportation of its passengers is the essence of American's business, see, Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385, 388 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 950, 92 S.Ct. 275, 30 L.Ed.2d 267 (1971), and there exists a Congressional mandate that an airline must operate its business with "the highest possible degree" of care. 49 U.S.C. § 1421(b). On this matter the following observation by the court in Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 437 F.Supp. 413 (N.D.Cal.1977), aff'd in relevant part, 649 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1980), is especially pertinent:
As an air carrier with a public duty to operate with the highest degree of safety, Pan Am is in the business of avoiding and managing the risks resulting from low probability occurrences which could have extremely serious consequences. Indeed, such risk management is of the essence of Pan Am's business, since aircraft accidents and incidents are invariably unique and low probability occurrences.
437 F.Supp. at 434. American likewise is in the business of managing risk factors and probabilities. As the district court observed and emphasized, the airline industry is one in which safety is of the utmost importance. The staggering death tolls and resulting human suffering which have followed some of our nation's horrible air disasters attest to this fact. Therefore, in our judgment, the airline industry must be accorded great leeway and discretion in determining the manner in which it may be operated most safely, Usery v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 531 F.2d 224, 236 n.30 (5th Cir. 1976). This is in accord with American's view that "safe" is not sufficient. Rather, the "safest" possible air transportation is the ultimate goal. Courts, in our view, do not possess the expertise with which, in a cause presenting safety as the critical element, to supplant their judgments for those of the employer.
Appellant's argument concerning the undisputed fact that all Captains, irrespective of their ages, must begin with no experience as Captains is similarly not persuasive. The fact remains that, as previously indicated, American's intended goal of maintaining a staff of Captains which has the longest possible record of experience in American cockpits is, in our opinion, completely justified. We believe that the district court's findings of fact, many of which were agreed to by the parties, support the conclusion that American's hiring policies, including the age forty guideline, might result in the death of one less person than were American required to abandon or modify these policies. See, Hodgson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 499 F.2d 859, 863 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied sub nom. Brennan v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 419 U.S. 1122, 95 S.Ct. 805, 42 L.Ed.2d 822 (1975).
In sum, there was ample factual evidence and legal precedent to support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EEOC v. Com. of Pa.
...test to account for this aspect. Orzel, 697 F.2d at 755-56; Tuohy, 675 F.2d at 844-45; County of Santa Barbara, 666 F.2d at 377-78; Murnane, 667 F.2d at 101; Arritt, 567 F.2d at 1271; Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 531 F.2d at 235-36. Rather, public safety's role has been recognized as a compet......
-
Orzel v. City of Wauwatosa Fire Dept.
...See also Beck v. Manheim, 505 F.Supp. 923 (E.D.Pa.1981); Aaron v. Davis, 414 F.Supp. 453 (E.D.Ark.1976); cf. Murnane v. American Airlines, Inc., 667 F.2d 98 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1770, 72 L.Ed.2d 174 (1982) (finding maximum hiring rule for pilots justified b......
-
Allen v. American Home Foods, Inc.
...n. 3, but proceeded to consider the case because three of the original plaintiffs were over the age of forty. In Murnane v. American Airlines, Inc., 667 F.2d 98 (D.C.Cir.1981), cert. denied 456 U.S. 915, 102 S.Ct 1770, 72 L.Ed.2d 174 (1982), a 43-year-old plaintiff attacked an airline's "ag......
-
Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp.
...v. United Airlines, Inc., 728 F.2d 614 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 832, 105 S.Ct. 120, 83 L.Ed.2d 62 (1984); Murnane v. American Airlines, 667 F.2d 98 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 915, 102 S.Ct. 1770, 72 L.Ed.2d 174 (1982). These cases all deal with the question of the appropri......
-
Federalism in the twenty-first century: preemption in the field of air.
...to 49 U.S.C. [section] 44729 (2007). (32) See, for example. Murname v. American Airlines, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 135 (D.D.C. 1979), aff'd, 667 F.2d 98 (D.C. Cir. (33) 49 U.S.C. [section]1305(a)(1), renumbered 49 U.S.C. [section]41713(b)(I). (34) Polakoff, 2003 WL 22384768, at *6. (35) 181 F.3d ......