Professional Pilots Federation v. Federal Aviation Administration

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1997 · Administrative Law

118 F.3d 758 (1997)

Updated July 31, 2026

administrative lawFAA rulemakingAge Discrimination in Employment Actarbitrary and capricious reviewADEAFAAAge 60 RuleAPA

Facts

The FAA adopted the Age 60 Rule in 1959 as an air-safety regulation barring use of pilots age 60 or older in Part 121 operations. After the FAA received the 1993 Hilton Study and public comments, the Professional Pilots Federation petitioned the agency to repeal the rule, arguing that newer evidence showed the blanket age cutoff was unjustified and conflicted with national policy against age discrimination. In 1995 the FAA denied repeal, concluding that the original safety concerns had not been shown invalid, and also extended Part 121 coverage to certain commuter operations, thereby making them subject to the Age 60 Rule. The pilots challenged both actions under the ADEA and the APA.

Issue

Does the ADEA restrict the FAA's authority to impose a mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots when the FAA is acting as an aviation safety regulator, and did the FAA act arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by retaining the Age 60 Rule and extending it to certain commuter operations?

Rule

The ADEA's prohibition on age discrimination applies to employers, including federal agencies acting as employers, but does not by implication restrict the FAA's specific statutory authority to regulate air safety under 49 U.S.C. § 44701 when the agency acts as a regulator. Under the APA, an FAA decision retaining or extending a safety rule is valid if the agency offers a reasoned explanation, responds to relevant and significant comments, and gives adequate consideration to reasonable alternatives; ordinary arbitrary-and-capricious review applies when the agency's refusal to institute rulemaking rests on the merits of the existing rule rather than on pragmatic management concerns.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Federal Rail Safety Bureau issues a nationwide safety regulation barring train engineers age 67 and older from operating overnight passenger routes in Chicago and Detroit. A union challenges the rule, arguing that it forces rail companies to violate the ADEA because age cannot lawfully be used in employment decisions.

How should a court most likely rule on the ADEA argument?

Explanation. The majority held that the ADEA speaks to employers, including agencies when acting as employers, but does not by implication override a specific statutory grant of safety-regulatory authority when the agency acts as a regulator. So a safety rule using age as a criterion is not invalid merely because regulated employers must implement it. The court also declined to require analysis under the ADEA's bona fide occupational qualification provision once it concluded the ADEA did not substantively limit the agency in its regulatory role.