Justices Tighten Rules Against Age Bias
The Supreme Court, tightening the rules against age discrimination, held unanimously Tuesday that Trans World Airlines violated the law when it denied pilots older than 60 the same chance to switch to less demanding jobs that it gave younger pilots.
Although the airline was not required to grant transfer privileges to any pilot, if TWA did allow younger ones to change jobs for reasons such as medical disabilities, it could not deny others the opportunity merely because of their age, the court said.
Concession to Employers But, in an important concession to employers, the justices ruled also that TWA was not liable for more costly double-damage awards to the pilots who brought suit against the airline. TWA, the court held, did not “willfully” violate age discrimination laws. Only when an employer knows that he violates the law--or recklessly disregards it--are double damages applicable, the court said.
In a second significant decision, the court gave police more power to detain criminal suspects, ruling unanimously that authorities may stop persons wanted for questioning in other jurisdictions, even when they cannot confirm that an arrest warrant has been issued.
Since 1968, the court has allowed police officers to temporarily detain, question and make limited searches of persons they reasonably suspect are committing or are about to commit a crime. In an opinion Tuesday by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court said that policemen may do the same, when crimes had already been committed, on the basis of a “wanted flyer” issued by another law enforcement agency. Any evidence obtained would be admissible in court, provided that the police agency that issued the flyer held “reasonable suspicions” justifying the stop, the court said (U.S. vs. Hensley, 83-1330).
In the discrimination case (TWA vs. Thurston, 83-997), several employer groups filed briefs asking the court to give businesses additional guidance on how far the law requires them to go to accommodate older workers who they believe can no longer perform their jobs.
Attorneys for employers, although expressing disappointment with the finding of discrimination, voiced relief over the part of the court decision that allows heavier penalties only when an employer is shown to have known--or ignored the possibility--that he had violated the law.
Henry J. Oechler Jr. of New York, attorney for TWA, said that although he was “obviously disappointed” by the discrimination finding, he was pleased by the establishment of a reasonable and uniform standard for determining damages.
The case arose after the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was amended in 1978 to raise the mandatory retirement age for most jobs to 70. TWA then adopted a policy allowing flight engineers, who share the cockpit with pilots and co-pilots and monitor an instrument panel, to stay on the job past the previous limit of 60. Meanwhile, federal safety regulations barring commercial airline pilots and co-pilots from flying after age 60 remained intact.
The airline said that it would permit pilots to apply for available flight engineer jobs but that they could not “bump” engineers with less seniority and that pilots must retire at 60 if there were no such openings.
Harold H. Thurston of San Francisco and two other pilots reaching 60 sought and were denied jobs as engineers. They brought suit charging discrimination, pointing out that the airline allowed younger pilots to bump less senior engineers for reasons unrelated to age--such as medical disability or job reductions.
A federal district court ruled against the three pilots, but the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld their claim, finding the airline liable for double back pay for willful discrimination.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. before his hospitalization last week, agreed that TWA had improperly based its policy on age. Although the law allowed the airline to retire any disqualified pilot, including those over 60, it did not permit TWA to deny older pilots the same right younger pilots held to transfer to the job of flight engineer, where the 60-year age limit does not apply, the court said.
Issue of Double Damages The court then turned to the question of double damages for willful violations--a provision aimed at giving employers more incentive to guard against discriminating by age. The justices rejected both TWA’s proposal that liability apply only when an employer is proved to have intentionally violated the act and the pilots’ suggestion that it apply any time an employer was aware of the “appreciable possibility” of violations.
Powell wrote instead that employers would be liable for double penalties when they “knew” or showed “reckless disregard” for whether their policies were prohibited. Here, the court said, the evidence showed that the airline made good-faith efforts to see if its policies violated the law.
