# Air Line Pilots Ass'n International v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · August 1, 1983 · 713 F.2d 940

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8917468

## Case

- **Full name:** AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Harold H. Thurston and Nicholas Vasilaros, Defendants-Intervenors Appellees Harold H. Thurston, Christopher J. Clark and C. A. Parkhill, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. and Air Line Pilots Association, International
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** August 1, 1983
- **Citations:** 713 F.2d 940; 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2241; 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 33,757; 32 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1185; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 25275
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Graafeiland
- **Judges:** Graafeiland, Mansfield, Waterman
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed in part, on other grounds by Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (1985).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8917468

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding union hable for causing or attempting to cause employer to discriminate in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) where it had campaigned to persuade the employer to retain a discriminatory retirement policy, opposed the employer’s efforts to at…
- establishing that BFOQ provision “may be invoked only if an employer proves ‘plainly and unmistakably’ that its employment practice meets the ‘terms and spirit’ of the remedial legislation”

## Opinion text

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority that the judgment in favor of Trans World Airlines, Inc. and against Air Line Pilots Association International should be affirmed. I dissent from the majority’s reversal of the judgment in favor of TWA and against Thurston and the EEOC.
If I understand the basis for the latter holding, it is that pilots who reach 60 years of age are treated less favorably than younger pilots who sustain disabling injuries or whose positions are eliminated at a domicile by reductions in force. In my opinion, this is like comparing apples with oranges. A pilot does not know in advance that he is going to break his leg or that company economies will eliminate the job he is performing. However, a pilot knows the exact date on which he will become 60 years of age and that after that date, FAA regulations will no longer permit him to work as a pilot. Unlike a disabled younger man, a healthy pilot, 60 years of age, cannot go on unpaid medical leave for up to five years. For similar reasons, a 60 year old pilot should not be entitled to take a ten year furlough from a job he is forbidden by law to perform, accruing seniority status in the process. I don’t believe Congress intended that such a pilot should be permitted to take a nine-year vacation and return to work at the age of 69, displacing a younger flight engineer, who might have a spouse and family but who has less seniority.
Apparently, TWA is the only trunk airline that voluntarily has permitted pilots over 60 to continue working as flight engineers. Instead of receiving commendation for what it has done, TWA is held liable as a matter of law for age discrimination. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8917468. Public record. Not legal advice.