Case Analysis Paper

Chapter 12 Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400 (1985) page 675

Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice. For full credit, you must use the material from the textbook by using APA citations with page numbers when responding to the questions.

Utilize the case format below.

Read and understand the case. Show your analysis and reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to incorporate the concepts of the chapter we are studying to show your reasoning. For each of the cases you select, dedicate one heading to each following outline topic.

**** IF YOU CAN NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION I NEED THE CORRECT ANSWER TO THE BELOW CASE ONLY ****

• Case: (Identify the name of the case and page number in the textbook.)
• Parties: (Identify the plaintiff and the defendant.)
• Facts: (Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case.)
• Issue: (Note the central question or questions on which the case turns.)
• Applicable Law(s): (Identify the applicable laws.) Use the textbook here by using citations. The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers.
• Holding: (How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?)
• Reasoning: (Explain the logic that supported the court's decision.)
• Case Questions: (Explain the logic that supported the court's decision.) Dedicate one subheading to each of the case questions immediately following the case. First, fully state the question from the book and then fully answer.
• Conclusion: (This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the court's ruling.)
• Include citations and a reference page with your sources for all of the cases. Use APA-style citations with page numbers and references.

Reflection: (Include a reflection section.) This should cover all of the work in this course. Students must address specific cases or concepts with citations. This section should not be shallow but show some deep reflective thought to receive full credit.

Chapter 12 Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400 (1985) page 675

This case is a seminal Supreme Court decision examining whether age ever is permitted to serve as a BFOQ. Western Air Lines requires that its flight engineers, who are members of the cockpit crew but do not operate flight controls unless both the pilot and the copilot become incapacitated, retire at age 60. At the time of the case, Federal Aviation Administration regulation prohibited anyone from acting as a pilot or copilot after they had reached the age of 60. The respondents in this case include both pilots who were denied reassignment to the position of flight engineers at age 60 and flight engineers who were forced to retire at that age. The airline argued that the age 60 retirement requirement is a BFOQ reasonably necessary to the safe operation of the business. The lower court instructed the jury as follows: The airline could establish age as a BFOQ only if it was highly impractical for [petitioner] to deal with each [flight engineer] over age 60 on an individualized basis to determine his particular ability to perform his job safely and that some flight engineers over 60 possess traits of a physiological, psychological or other nature which preclude safe and efficient job performance that cannot be ascertained by means other than knowing their age. The Supreme Court evaluated whether this instruction was appropriate and determined that it correctly stated the law.

Stevens, J.

***

The evidence at trial established that the flight engineers normal duties are less critical to the safety of flight than those of a pilot. The flight engineer, however, does have critical functions in emergency situations and, of course, might cause considerable disruption in the event of his own medical emergency.

The actual capabilities of persons over age 60, and the ability to detect diseases or a precipitous decline in their faculties, were the subject of conflicting medical testimony. Westerns expert witness, a former FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] deputy federal air surgeon, was especially concerned about the possibility of a cardiovascular event, such as a heart attack. He testified that with advancing age the likelihood of onset of disease increases and that in persons over age 60 it could not be predicted whether and when such diseases would occur.

The plaintiffs experts, on the other hand, testified that physiological deterioration is caused by disease, not aging, and that it was feasible to determine on the basis of individual medical examinations whether flight deck crew members, including those over age 60, were physically qualified to continue to fly. Moreover, several large commercial airlines have flight engineers over age 60 flying the line without any reduction in their safety record.

Throughout the legislative history of the ADEA, one empirical fact is repeatedly emphasized: the process of psychological and physiological degeneration caused by aging varies with each individual. The basic research in the field of aging has established that there is a wide range of individual physical ability regardless of age. As a result, many older workers perform at levels equal or superior to their younger colleagues.

In 1965, the secretary of labor reported to Congress that despite these well-established medical facts, there is persistent and widespread use of age limits in hiring that in a great many cases can be attributed only to arbitrary discrimination against older workers on the basis of age and regardless of ability. Two years later, the president recommended that Congress enact legislation to abolish arbitrary age limits on hiring. Such limits, the president declared, have a devastating effect on the dignity of the individual and result in a staggering loss of human resources vital to the national economy.

The legislative history of the 1978 amendments to the ADEA makes quite clear that the policies and substantive provisions of the act apply with especial force in the case of mandatory retirement provisions. The House Committee on Education and Labor reported: Increasingly, it is being recognized that mandatory page 676retirement based solely upon age is arbitrary and that chronological age alone is a poor indicator of ability to perform a job.

In Usery v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., the court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit was called upon to evaluate the merits of a BFOQ defense to a claim of age discrimination. Tamiami Trail Tours had a policy of refusing to hire persons over age 40 as intercity bus drivers. At trial, the bus company introduced testimony supporting its theory that the hiring policy was a BFOQ based upon safety considerationsthe need to employ persons who have a low risk of accidents. The court concluded that the job qualifications which the employer invokes to justify his discrimination must be reasonably necessary to the essence of his businesshere, the safe transportation of bus passengers from one point to another. The greater the safety factor, measured by the likelihood of harm and the probable severity of that harm in case of an accident, the more stringent may be the job qualifications designed to insure safe driving.

In the absence of persuasive evidence supporting its position, Western nevertheless argues that the jury should have been instructed to defer to Westerns selection of job qualifications for the position of flight engineer that are reasonable in light of safety risks. This proposal is plainly at odds with Congresss decision, in adopting the ADEA, to subject management decisions to a test of objective justification in a court of law. The BFOQ standard adopted in the statute is one of reasonable necessity, not reasonableness.

In adopting that standard, Congress did not ignore the public interest in safety. That interest is adequately reflected in instructions that track the language of the statute. When an employer establishes that a job qualification has been carefully formulated to respond to documented concerns for public safety, it will not be overly burdensome to persuade a trier of fact that the qualification is reasonably necessary to safe operation of the business. The uncertainty implicit in the concept of managing safety risks always makes it reasonably necessary to err on the side of caution in a close case . . . . Since the instructions in this case would not have prevented the airline from raising this contention to the jury in closing argument, we are satisfied that the verdict is a consequence of a defect in Westerns proof, rather than a defect in the trial courts instructions.