News & Information

EMPLOYMENT LAW — 11/13/06

Muslim pilot fired for violating company policy, no animus shown

A Muslim probationary pilot of Indian descent was discharged for breaking a company policy when he entered a hotel bar while in uniform, concluded the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Neither the EEOC nor the pilot provided sufficient evidence showing that the discharge was motivated by the pilot's race, religion or national origin. (EEOC v Trans State Airlines, Inc, 8thCir, 88 EPD ¶42,558)

While commercial air travel was suspended because of the September 11th terrorist attacks, an airline's vice president of flight operations received an anonymous phone call stating that the pilot had been seen in a hotel bar in a company uniform making comments about the attacks. At all relevant times, the company maintained a policy that pilots were not permitted to be in uniform in establishments serving alcohol. While the airline had a progressive disciplinary policy in place for such violations, the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) on record specifically provided that the right to "progressive discipline" did not extend to probationary pilots. Consequently, the airline discharged the pilot for breaking the policy. Filing suit on behalf of the pilot, who subsequently intervened, the EEOC alleged violations of Title VII and Missouri law.

Affirming judgment in favor of the airline, the Eighth Circuit held that the EEOC and the pilot (plaintiffs) failed to show that the airline was motivated by discriminatory animus, rather than "solely by its belief that [the pilot] violated company policy." While discriminatory animus could be inferred by the fact that the pilot was discharged shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, there was no evidence presented that the decisionmaker who discharged the pilot was ever informed of his race, religion or national origin.

In addition, the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of pretext. While the plaintiffs alleged that the airline varied from its progressive disciplinary policy when it discharged the pilot without "notice and an opportunity to be heard," it was undisputed that the CBA did not provide "progressive discipline" to probationary employees, like the pilot. To the extent that the airline's progressive disciplinary policy conflicted with the CBA, the CBA controlled, held the circuit court. Accordingly, given the heightened concern in the airline industry about avoiding any connection between pilots and alcohol, the CBA's provision that the right to "progressive discipline" did not extend to probationary pilots and the plaintiffs' insufficient evidence supporting a finding of intentional discrimination, the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the airline.

For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.

Visit our News Library to read more news stories.