Kincheloe v. American Airlines, Inc.

Background

Robert Kincheloe, Vonna Rudine, and Sandra Christafferson brought a collective action against American Airlines, Inc. under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), a federal law prohibiting certain age discrimination in employment. Their allegations focused on two Voluntary Early Out Programs (VEOPs) that American offered to qualifying flight attendants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The March 2020 VEOP required at least 10 years of seniority and offered approximately $31,122 in pay in exchange for early retirement. The July 2020 VEOP offered the same benefits plus flexible healthcare spending benefits and roundtrip flight passes. Plaintiffs alleged that American denied leaves of absence and reduced work schedules, discouraged use of personal protective equipment, and told flight attendants that there would be no further early-retirement programs. They also alleged that air travel had sharply declined and that older people faced greater risks from COVID-19. Plaintiffs claimed these circumstances made the early-retirement offer effectively involuntary and discriminatory.

The court had previously dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, finding in relevant part that the first VEOP was not an adverse employment action. Plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Complaint. American moved to dismiss that complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether the complaint adequately states a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the ADEA contains a safe harbor for a bona fide voluntary early-retirement incentive plan that complies with the law’s purposes. Because the parties agreed that the March 2020 VEOP was an early-retirement program, the plaintiffs had to plausibly allege a constructive discharge for the program to qualify as an adverse employment action. Constructive discharge occurs when discriminatory working conditions become so extraordinary and severe that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet this demanding standard. It relied on its earlier findings that the alleged mask-related policy was not inconsistent with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the time, and that the denials of leave or reduced schedules, even if unpleasant, would not make a reasonable person feel compelled to resign. The court also noted that those policies allegedly applied generally to flight attendants rather than targeting only older workers.

The additional allegations about COVID-19 did not change the result. The court reasoned that the general decline in air travel and the greater health risks COVID-19 posed to older people were not conditions created by American as a result of age discrimination. The court also rejected the argument that the ADEA required American to give older workers preferential treatment or additional accommodations because they faced greater COVID-19 risks.

The court further held that the choice between accepting the VEOP and continuing to fly during the pandemic, although described by plaintiffs as unpleasant, was not enough to establish constructive discharge. Without an adverse employment action, plaintiffs could not maintain their ADEA theories, including disparate treatment and disparate impact. The court did not reach American’s other arguments concerning the terms of the VEOPs or whether seniority was a reasonable factor other than age.

Disposition

The court granted American’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. It denied further amendment because plaintiffs had already amended their complaint after the court identified the constructive-discharge deficiency, and the Second Amended Complaint still did not cure that deficiency. The order stated that judgment would issue.