|
Coupe v. Federal Express Corp.,
121 F.3d 1022 (6th Cir. (Tenn.) Aug. 5, 1997)
The Defendant in this case operated cargo planes and, therefore,
was regulated by the FAA. The FAA regulation codified at 14 C.F.R. 121 prohibits
any employer from using the services of any pilot over the age of 60. The Plaintiff,
Coupe, as he approached his sixtieth birthday, was given the choice of retirement
or training for a lower-paying flight engineer position. Two months before he
turned 60, Coupe brought this suit in federal court alleging age discrimination
under the ADEA. The district court granted the Defendant’s motion for failure
to state a claim for which relief could be granted and Mr. Coupe appealed.
The Plaintiff asked the Sixth Circuit to declare the FFA’s
age 60 rule an invalid exercise of rulemaking power. The court held that, since
the FAA was not a party to the litigation, it would not strike the rule. Coupe
then argued that he was entitled to an injunction requiring Federal Express to
reinstate him as a pilot. The court responded that, since the age 60 rule provided
Federal Express with a good defense to the ADEA claim as a matter of law, Mr.
Coupe had no right to such an injunction.
The court noted that it is not unlawful for an employer
to take any action otherwise prohibited by the ADEA where age is a bona fide occupational
qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business.
The Court of Appeals noted that the EEOC set forth a regulation at 29 C.F.R. 1625.6(b)
which mandates that an employer asserting the BFOQ defense has the burden of proving
that (1) the age limit is reasonably necessary to the essence of the business,
and either (2) that all, or substantially all, of the individuals excluded from
the job are in fact disqualified, or (3) that some of the individuals so excluded
possess a disqualifying trait that cannot be ascertained except by reference to
age.
The court noted that, although the FAA never expressly
established a bona fide occupational qualification for ADEA purposes, it had performed
the same sort of analysis that a court would undertake in determining the legitimacy
of a BFOQ defense under the framework established by the EEOC regulation.
As to the first element, the FAA had determined that its
age 60 requirement was reasonably necessary to the essence of the business because
of concerns that using older pilots was unsafe. The FAA had most recently reaffirmed
this rule in 1995, noting that there is a progressive anatomic, physiological,
and cognitive decline associated with aging. Thus, the FAA had decided that safety
concerns made the age 60 rule reasonably necessary for pilots.
As to the second element of the EEOC’s test, the
court noted that the FAA’s age 60 rule was premised on the impossibility
or impracticality of determining, on an individualized basis, whether a particular
pilot’s age rendered him unable to perform safely and effectively. The FAA
had noted in 1995 that, at some age, everyone reaches a level of infirmity that
is unacceptable in a pilot. This age will vary from person to person and cannot
be predicted in a specific individual. The FAA had considered alternatives to
the age 60 rule, such as performance testing and medical certification, but had
concluded that each of these options was less safe than the age 60 rule.
The Court of Appeals concluded by finding that the employer’s
burden to make a particularized factual showing in support of its BFOQ defense
was satisfied by demonstrating the existence of an age-based rule from a Federal
agency which bound the employer, especially where, as here, the rule has been
adopted on grounds that could support a BFOQ defense had the age limit been adopted
by the employer voluntarily.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment
of the district court.
- Back to Sixth Circuit Court Cases
-
|
