University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION EE-TX-0117
Docket / Court 3:06-CV-1732-K ( N.D. Tex. )
Additional Docket(s) [ 08-10624 ]  Federal Court of Appeals
13-10164  [ 13-10164 ]  Federal Court of Appeals
State/Territory Texas
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The Dallas district office of the EEOC filed this complaint against the Exxon Mobil Corporation on September 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. EEOC alleged that Exxon Mobil violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by prohibiting pilots, ... read more >
The Dallas district office of the EEOC filed this complaint against the Exxon Mobil Corporation on September 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. EEOC alleged that Exxon Mobil violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by prohibiting pilots, including the complainants in this case, from piloting corporate planes once they reached the age of sixty. Exxon Mobil forced the complainants under the company's policy into involuntary retirement. The EEOC sought injunctive relief, damages for the complainants, attorneys' fees, and a correction to an unlawful employment practice that discriminated on the basis of age. The request for preliminary injunction was denied, but in a subsequent hearing the judge ruled that the plaintiff would stay employed, but "grounded" and maintain the same rate of pay.

Exxon Mobil filed for summary judgement, arguing its policy was a “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification” (BFOQ), meaning that prohibiting pilots from flying after a certain age was reasonably necessary to the business and it would be impossible or highly impractical to deal with the older employees on an individualized basis. The court granted summary judgment on April 28, 2008 (2008 WL 1958992).

On July 3, 2008, the EEOC appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that it had not been allowed sufficient range of discovery in terms of establishing the continuing validity of the BFOQ and the FAA’s age-based rule as a matter of law before summary judgement was issued. The Fifth Circuit found for the EEOC and the case was remanded on August 27, 2009. 2009 WL 2710072.

On remand, the district court heard arguments relating to continuing validity. Through expert testimony, Exxon Mobil established that the risk of sudden incapacitation increases with age and no test can adequately anticipate the likelihood of when an incapacitating event may occur. The EEOC argued that the risk for incapacitation was rare and that advances in medicine rendered a blanket policy regarding age unnecessary. The court found that Exxon Mobil has established the continuing validity of its age-based rule as a matter of law. Summary Judgement for Exxon Mobil was granted on September 13, 2012 and amended on December 19, 2012. 2012 WL 6608755.

The EEOC appealed again to the Fifth Circuit on February 13, 2013 for reconsideration. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s ruling on March 25, 2014. 560 Fed. Appx. 282. This case has been closed.

Mary Book - 10/29/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis
Age discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Pattern or Practice
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Defendant(s) Exxon Mobil Corporation
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more private corporate pilots forced into early retirement once they turned sixty.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Filing Year 2006
Case Closing Year 2014
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
3:06-cv-01732 (N.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0117-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/08/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint
EE-TX-0117-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/22/2006
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Pursuant Rule 65, F.R.C.P. [ECF# 2]
EE-TX-0117-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/22/2006
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief and Amended Request for Preliminary Relief [ECF# 24]
EE-TX-0117-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/26/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplement to its Petition for Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Rule 65, F.R.C.P. [ECF# 25]
EE-TX-0117-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/18/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 26] (2007 WL 1556964) (N.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0117-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 05/30/2007
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 41] (2008 WL 1958992) (N.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0117-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 04/28/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas [Ct. of App. ECF# 48]
EE-TX-0117-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/23/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
EEOC's First Amended Complaint Nature of the Action [ECF# 65]
EE-TX-0117-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/16/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 129] (2012 WL 6608755) (N.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0117-0009.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 12/19/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S.D.C. No. 3:06-CV-1732 [Ct. of App. ECF# 135]
EE-TX-0117-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/29/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Kinkeade, Ed Court not on record
EE-TX-0117-0005 | EE-TX-0117-0006 | EE-TX-0117-0009 | EE-TX-0117-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Anderson, Suzanne M. (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-0002 | EE-TX-0117-0003 | EE-TX-0117-0004 | EE-TX-0117-0008 | EE-TX-0117-9000
Backhaus, William C. (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-0002 | EE-TX-0117-0003 | EE-TX-0117-0004 | EE-TX-0117-9000
Bruner, Paula R (District of Columbia)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Canino, Robert Anthony (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-0002 | EE-TX-0117-0003 | EE-TX-0117-0004 | EE-TX-0117-0008 | EE-TX-0117-9000
Clark, Joel P. (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Shepard, Meghan L. (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Duffy, Dennis P (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Griffin, Karen E. (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Hartsfield, Dan (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Lee, JoAnn (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Norfleet, Christopher J. (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
O'Brien, Thomas E. (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Phelan, Rod (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Rivet, David M. (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Rosenstein, Tony P. (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000
Other Lawyers Parker, John R (Texas)
EE-TX-0117-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -