| Courts |

Irving-based ExxonMobil's Allegedly Ageist Pilot Retirement Policy Survives Federal Challenge

Keep Dallas Observer Free
I Support
  • Local
  • Community
  • Journalism
  • logo

Support the independent voice of Dallas and help keep the future of Dallas Observer free.

A six-year court battle waged by the feds against an ExxonMobil policy mandating the retirement of all corporate pilots at the age of 60 was dealt its second defeat in a Dallas federal court. The challenge, filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, characterized the policy as ageist and in violation of federal law.

The district court, as before, sided with ExxonMobil. The multinational oil and gas company argued that its policy mirrored a previous Federal Aviation Administration rule setting the same limit. In 2008, Judge Ed Kinkeade, the magistrate who authored the opinion, agreed and tossed EEOC's challenge. The commission appealed and won a reversal in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to district court.

Kinkeade remained equally unconvinced in the latest go-round, denying motions to strike ExxonMobil's witnesses, who included neurologists and the director of Dallas' Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute. Each testified to the unpredictability of incapacitating heart attacks and strokes. Indeed, he ruled, under federal law, an employer can't discriminate based on age. Unless, and that's a big unless, youth is a "qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a particular business."

In this case, that business is flying Exxon honchos all over the world in private jets that start at around $65 million apiece.

"Generally, Exxon contends that aging causes a progressive physiological and cognitive decline, and that it remains impossible to determine whether or when an individual pilot will experience a medical event jeopardizing aviation safety," the judge writes. "This was and is the rationale in support of the FAA's age-based rule."

Suzanne M. Anderson, an EEOC attorney, would only say, "Because the case is still active, we're considering our options right now. We're considering our appellate options."

The battle, it seems, will continue.

Keep the Dallas Observer Free... Since we started the Dallas Observer, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Dallas, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Dallas with no paywalls.

We use cookies to collect and analyze information on site performance and usage, and to enhance and customize content and advertisements. By clicking 'X' or continuing to use the site, you agree to allow cookies to be placed. To find out more, visit our cookies policy and our privacy policy.


Join the Observer community and help support independent local journalism in Dallas.


Join the Observer community and help support independent local journalism in Dallas.