Mandatory Retirement

[GEXDriver]

Does anyone work in a flight department that has a mandatory retirement age - 60, 62, 65, etc.? How is compensation handled at retirement? Is there a severance package? a defined benefit pension plan or years of tenure added to the pension plan? or perhaps a few years pay to carry you to social security?

Thanks

 

[Bleeds On]

That almost sounds like an age discrimination lawsuit considering no regs state mandatory retirement for 91.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

That almost sounds like an age discrimination lawsuit considering no regs state mandatory retirement for 91.

From what I have seen...99% of the time its voluntary and the ones offered packages are happy to take them.

 

[Problow]

Little bit of Corporate Pilot history shows that it's not age discrimination, does't mean I am in support or not in support.



Court Rules in Favor of Employer on Corporate Pilots’ Age Discrimination Claims
A federal court in Texas has held that a group of corporate pilots failed to show they were subjected to age discrimination when they were forced to retire at age 60. See EEOC v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (N.D. Tex, April 28, 2008). In ruling for the employer, the court held that the employer’s policy is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) and does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court also held that the employer’s reliance on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s age 60 rule is probative of a BFOQ because the work performed by the corporate pilots is congruent with the work performed by commercial pilots in all material ways.

In this case, several pilots who were required by company policy to retire when they turned 60 filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC, claiming their terminations violated the ADEA. The ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who are age 40 and older on the basis of age; however, the law permits an employer to discharge an employee on the basis of age when age is a BFOQ.

The EEOC found that the company discriminated against the pilots in violation of the ADEA and subsequently filed suit on behalf of the pilots, seeking, among other things, an order prohibiting Exxon from enforcing its mandatory retirement policy. In our September 2007 Airline Newsletter, we discussed the court’s decision denying this request.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, Exxon’s mandatory retirement policy mirrored the FAA’s rule for commercial pilots, which prohibited them from flying past age 60. Since the lawsuit was filed, Congress passed the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act (FTEPA), which raised the mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots to 65, subject to certain limitations for international flights. Exxon has since altered its retirement policy to mirror the new rule enacted by Congress.

In its recent order granting judgment in favor of Exxon, the court noted that the passage of the FTEPA does not change its analysis from the earlier order denying the preliminary injunction. In order to prevail on a BFOQ defense, an employer must show that the age limit is reasonably necessary to the essence of the business. The employer must also demonstrate that all or substantially all of the individuals excluded from the job are in fact disqualified, or that some excluded individuals possess a disqualifying trait that cannot be ascertained except by reference to age because it is impossible or highly impractical to deal with employees on an individualized basis.

Exxon argued that its reliance on the FAA’s rule prohibiting pilots from flying after they reach a certain age is probative evidence that its mandatory retirement age is a BFOQ. In addressing this issue, the court examined the congruity between the occupations at issue and the weight of the evidence supporting the FAA rule’s rationale. Here, the court focused on whether the safety concerns that motivate the FAA rule are equally applicable to Exxon and its aircraft.

The court noted that the aircraft flown by Exxon pilots, including four Bombardier Global Express jets and five Bombardier Challenger 300 jets, are similar in terms of speed and range to those flown by commercial pilots. The court also found that Exxon’s pilots are substantially similar to commercial pilots in terms of experience, qualifications and job responsibilities. Further, the court held that the fact that Exxon’s aviation department may have a different purpose than commercial airlines is not a material difference.

Accordingly, the court held that the vast majority of safety concerns that apply to commercial airline pilots apply with equal force to Exxon’s pilots. “Most fundamentally, a concern that as a pilot’s skills deteriorate with age the risk of an accident increases applies to both commercial pilots and Exxon’s pilots.”

The court concluded that the worked performed by Exxon’s pilots is congruent with the work performed by commercial airline pilots in all material ways. Consequently, the court found the FAA’s age-related rule to be highly probative of Exxon’s BFOQ defense. Thus, the court held that Exxon established its BFOQ defense and, accordingly, granted judgment in favor of the company on the pilots’ age discrimination claims.

 

[semperfido]

if I told you the deal pilots had at my last job, you would shoot yourself. That was then, things are different now

 

[Bleeds On]

From what I have seen...99% of the time its voluntary and the ones offered packages are happy to take them.

I'm sure that's true and I think a company should have the right to set a max age. My initial reaction, though, was if he doesn't like what's offered or doesn't want to retire, then he'd have a good case.

 

[Muddauber]

Does anyone have any idea how any specific company is handling this issue? I heard that Honeywell had an age 65 retirement for general employees, but gave their pilots 5 years credit and retired them at 60.

 

[CorpCaptain]

At a recent interview with a Fortune 50 company, they offered retirement @ 60. Mandatory was 65, but if you took it at 60 you essentially received 3yrs of full pay after accepting "Retirement". The director told me that in the last 12yrs he has not seen anyone turn it down (yet).

 

[semperfido]

At a recent interview with a Fortune 50 company, they offered retirement @ 60. Mandatory was 65, but if you took it at 60 you essentially received 3yrs of full pay after accepting "Retirement". The director told me that in the last 12yrs he has not seen anyone turn it down (yet).

sign me up for that deal

 

[CorpCaptain]

I wish they had liked me enough to allow me to take him up on it. I assured him that I would keep his streak alive if hired. Guess that wasnt enough:bawling: