Henry Weiland v. American Airlines, Inc.
778 F.3d 1112
9th Cir.2015Background
- Henry Weiland was a check airman/pilot for American Airlines and turned 60 on December 7, 2007.
- At that time the FAA’s Age 60 Rule (14 C.F.R. § 121.383(c)) barred pilots from flying after age 60; American ceased scheduling Weiland thereafter.
- On December 13, 2007 Congress enacted the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act (FTEPA), raising the retirement age to 65 but making the change explicitly non‑retroactive for persons who "attained 60 years of age before the date of enactment."
- FTEPA § 44729(e)(1)(A) created an exception allowing persons to serve if they were "in the employment of that air carrier in such operations on such date of enactment as a required flight deck crew member."
- Weiland alleged he met the (e)(1)(A) exception; American declined to reinstate him and he sued under California’s FEHA. The district court dismissed; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weiland was "in the employment" of the carrier on enactment date | Weiland was still employed (inactive) and receiving employment benefits on Dec 13, 2007 | American agreed he was employed but argued other statutory elements failed | Court: He was employed on Dec 13, 2007 (pleaded adequately) |
| Whether "in such operations" requires being lawfully engaged in Part 121 operations on enactment date | Weiland: phrase should be read to refer to the carrier’s operations and thus satisfied | American: person must be engaged in covered Part 121 operations on enactment date; Weiland was ineligible under the Age 60 Rule | Court: "in such operations" requires being engaged in covered operations on that date; Weiland was not, so element failed |
| Whether Weiland was a "required flight deck crew member" on enactment date | Weiland: as a pilot/check airman he falls within that class and was employed in that capacity | American: because Age 60 Rule prohibited him from serving, he was not a required flight deck crew member on Dec 13 | Court: He was not a required flight deck crew member on Dec 13 due to prohibition, so element failed |
| Effect of FTEPA’s "protection for compliance" on FEHA claim | Weiland: exception should apply so FTEPA abrogation would allow recovery | American: even if abrogation applied, §44729(e)(2) protects carriers who acted in conformance with either rule | Court: Because Weiland did not qualify for exception, American acted in conformance and is immune; FEHA claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (standard for reviewing motion to dismiss)
- Zadrozny v. Bank of New York Mellon, 720 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2013) (pleading standard; accept well‑pleaded facts)
- Emory v. United Air Lines, Inc., 720 F.3d 915 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (pilot is within class of "required flight deck crew member")
- Brooks v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 630 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2009) (collective bargaining agreement may allow non‑flying check airmen to qualify under §44729(e)(1)(A))