World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston,
469 U.S. 111 (1985)

TWA adopted a retirement plan which forced airline pilots to quit serving as captains at age 60, but permitted those captains approaching 60 to submit a "standing bid" for a flight engineer position. Under this system a captain would only get moved into a flight engineer position if such a position became open prior to their 60th birthday. If a captain younger than 60 years old, however, became disqualified as a captain for medical or other reasons, such as a reduced need for manpower, that captain, by virtue of their seniority, would be able to "bump" a less senior flight engineer and take their job. In Trans World, two captains brought litigation alleging that the above-detailed system gave a "privilege of employment" to younger captains which it did not grant to those over the age of 60.

The district court granted the Defendants summary judgment, holding that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the test set forth in McDonnell Douglas and that the affirmative defenses provided by the ADEA -- that an employer may take any action not otherwise permitted where age is a bona fide occupational qualification and that an employer may adopt a bona fide seniority system -- were applicable to TWA’s transfer policy. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that the McDonnell Douglas test was inappropriate because the Plaintiffs had shown direct proof of age discrimination and that the McDonnell Douglas test only applies to cases involving indirect proof. The court also held that the two affirmative defenses did not justify TWA’s discriminatory policy. Finally, the Second Circuit found TWA’s violation of the ADEA to be willful, thus allowing the Plaintiffs to collect liquidated damages under the Act. The Defendant appealed.

The Supreme Court held that TWA’s transfer policy did violate the ADEA because it denied a privilege of employment to sixty-year-old captains on the basis of age. Although the ADEA did not require the airline to grant transfer privileges to disqualified captains, if TWA had a policy giving disqualified captains the right to become flight engineers, it could not deny that opportunity to some captains because of their age. Thus, the policy as it stood was discriminatory on its face, and the McDonnell Douglas test was not appropriate. The Supreme Court went on to hold that the two affirmative defenses were not applicable. Age is not a bona fide occupational qualifications for the position of flight engineer, and the seniority system was not bona fide because the ADEA makes clear that no seniority system may require or permit the involuntary retirement of a protected individual because of their age. TWA’s system violated this requirement by allowing those disqualified captains under 60 to continue working while those 60 and over had no such guarantee.

Despite this, the Supreme Court found that the Defendant’s action did not amount to a willful violation of the ADEA. In so finding, the Court searched the legislative history of the ADEA and determined that Congress sought to define a willful violation as a situation where the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA. The Court noted that TWA officials met with their attorneys and made a good-faith effort to determine whether the policy that they enacted was acceptable under the ADEA. Furthermore, the Court ultimately found that the executive in charge of the policy’s implementation made reasonable efforts to ascertain the legality of the policy and believed, in good faith, that the policy was lawful. This being the case, the Court held that the violation was not willful and would not trigger liquidated damages.

The Supreme Court in Trans World Airlines affirmed the Second Circuit as to the issue of the discriminatory nature of the policy in question but reversed its finding of willfulness.

- Back to Supreme Court Cases -