Goldthorpe v. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited

Background The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the airline pilots qualified as exempt “learned professionals” under California Wage Order 9 and 29 C.F.R. § 541.301. Summary judgment is a decision based on the evidence without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact.

Issue The issue was whether the pilots met the definition of a learned professional, which requires an occupation to customarily involve advanced knowledge acquired through prolonged specialized intellectual instruction and to customarily require an advanced academic degree as a standard prerequisite. The applicable rules also require the employee to regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment.

Court’s reasoning The court concluded that no reasonable juror could find that the pilots met the learned-professional definition. The pilots’ highest commercial-pilot certification did not require a college degree, and Cathay did not require an advanced degree or even a high school diploma as a condition of employment. The court found that the pilots’ extensive training consisted primarily of flight hours and other practical experience rather than the prolonged intellectual study associated with an advanced academic degree.

The court also found that the pilots’ job duties were not primarily intellectual. Although commercial pilots sometimes exercise discretion and independent judgment, the court stated that most commercial flights are routine or largely automated. The court considered an airline-favorable decision in Paul v. Petroleum Equipment Tools Company but found more persuasive the analysis of the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board in In re U.S. Postal Service.

Disposition The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied. The plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment was granted. The court ruled that the pilots were not exempt from the wage-and-hour protections of California Wage Order 9.