472 U.S. 400 (1985)
In 1978, Western Air Lines, Inc. operated commercial flights using aircraft such as the Boeing 727 and McDonnell-Douglas DC-10, each requiring a captain, first officer, and flight engineer in the cockpit.1
The Federal Aviation Administration prohibited pilots and first officers from serving after reaching age 60 but imposed no such mandatory retirement age on flight engineers.2 Western maintained a retirement plan requiring all cockpit crew members, including flight engineers, to retire at age 60.3
Respondents Criswell and Starley served as captains on DC-10s and turned 60 in July 1978.4 To avoid retirement, they bid for flight engineer positions based on seniority under the collective-bargaining agreement.5 Western denied their applications, citing the retirement plan provision.6 Respondent Ron, a career flight engineer, was also retired upon turning 60 that year.7
Criswell, Starley, and Ron filed suit in the District Court for the Central District of California alleging that Western's under-age-60 qualification for flight engineers violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.8 At trial, the parties presented evidence on the flight engineer's duties, which are less critical than a pilot's during normal operations but important in emergencies, along with conflicting medical testimony regarding age-related physiological changes and the feasibility of individualized medical examinations for persons over 60.9 Several airlines employed flight engineers over age 60 without safety issues.10
The jury received instructions defining the BFOQ defense and requiring Western to prove both the reasonable necessity of the age qualification to safe operations and the impracticality of individualized assessments.11 The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and awarded damages.12 The District Court granted additional equitable relief.13 On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in all respects.14 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the BFOQ instruction issue.15
Whether the jury was properly instructed on the elements of the BFOQ defense under the ADEA?16
The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any individual because of age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).17 The Act permits such action where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1).18 This defense requires the employer to prove that the age qualification is reasonably necessary to the essence of the business.19 The employer must also show that either substantially all individuals excluded by the age limit are in fact disqualified.20 Alternatively, the employer must show that some possess disqualifying traits that cannot be ascertained except by reference to age, making individualized testing highly impractical.21
Yes. The jury instructions tracked the two-part inquiry for BFOQ defenses in safety cases.22 The qualification must be reasonably necessary to the essence of the business.23 Age must serve as a necessary proxy because substantially all older workers would be unable to perform safely or because individualized testing is highly impractical.24
The evidence showed that flight engineer duties are less critical than pilot duties during normal flight.25 The FAA and other airlines successfully rely on individualized medical assessments rather than age alone.26 Western failed to prove that individualized testing was highly impractical.27 Other carriers safely employed flight engineers over age 60.28 Medical experts testified that such testing was feasible.29 The instructions correctly required Western to meet the statutory standard rather than a more lenient rational-basis test.30 The verdict followed from Western's failure of proof on the facts presented.31
The jury was properly instructed on the elements of the BFOQ defense under the ADEA.32