Bondurant v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9215
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Northwest Airlines filed for Chapter 11; pilots faced wage concessions totaling about 40% during the concessionary period (85 months) under three agreements culminating in the Bankruptcy Restructuring Agreement (effective July 31, 2006 to December 31, 2011).
- The Master Executive Council (MEC) of the union appointed an Eligibility Committee to allocate the $888 million claim among pilots, using a time-worked approach but with a bright-line cutoff date to speed distribution.
- The MEC chose July 31, 2006 as the cutoff, rendering full eligibility to pilots employed on that date through 2011, while others received proportional credits based on actual months worked.
- Older pilots and those in the Pilot Early Retirement Program were considered, affecting who received full versus partial eligibility shares.
- Plaintiffs, all retirees who ended employment before the cutoff date, discovered they would receive far less than full shares and sued under the Railway Labor Act for unfair representation and under the ADEA and Michigan Elliott-Larsen Act for age discrimination.
- District court granted summary judgment for the union on both the fair representation and age-discrimination claims, which the Sixth Circuit reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair representation: arbitrariness or discrimination in claim allocation | Bondurant asserts cutoff was arbitrary/discriminatory against older pilots. | Union argues cutoff was a reasonable, quick-to-distribute compromise. | Not arbitrary or discriminatory; decision rationally balanced objectives. |
| Intentional age discrimination under ADEA | Plaintiffs point to statements suggesting animus against older pilots. | Statements do not show decisional animus or pretext; actions tied to legitimate goals. | No direct evidence of intent; no triable issue on intentional age discrimination. |
| Disparate impact under ADEA | Statistical disparity shows older pilots disproportionately disadvantaged. | Defense can show reasonable factors other than age; cutoff based on Bankruptcy needs and FAA rule. | Disparate-impact claim fails; defense shows reasonable factors other than age. |
| ADEA reasonable factors other than age defense | N/A | Distribution balanced constrained funds and legitimate objectives. | Cutoff based on reasonable factors other than age; no liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614 (6th Cir.2009) (animus not shown by non-decisional or unrelated statements; requires decisional link)
- Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (U.S. 1991) (highly deferential review of union decisions in arbitrariness analysis)
- Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 554 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2008) (reasonable factors other than age defense; burden-shifting for age discrimination)
- Merritt v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 613 F.3d 609 (6th Cir.2010) (tripartite duty of fair representation standard; arbitrariness/discrimination inquiry)
- Bondurant v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 718 F.Supp.2d 836 (E.D.Mich.2010) (district court analysis on arbitrariness and timing of eligibility)