Employment
Age discrimination; CBAs

Where a collective bargaining agreement only guaranteed employees' salaries would not be reduced before age 65, pay cuts to employees older than 65, whose jobs were eliminated, did not violate the ADEA.

"The plaintiffs contend that the arbitrator's determinations have no bearing on their ADEA claim because their claim is premised on the idea that Supplement U creates a 'benefit' that is part of the employment relationship, a benefit that was withheld from the plaintiffs on the basis of their age. This issue, according to the plaintiffs, was not before the arbitrator nor was it considered by the district court. There is no evidence, however, that the plaintiffs had a contractual right to comparable pay after the age of sixty-five under Supplement U, or in their words, that they were entitled to a 'benefit' created by virtue of the employment relationship. While 'an employee has both a contractual right by virtue of a collective bargaining agreement (or other employment contract), and a statutory right to be free from discrimination,' Tice, 288 F.3d at 317, the plaintiffs point to no language in Supplement U, express or implied, that can support their argument that American Airlines has discriminated against them by denying them positions of comparable pay. The express language of Supplement U, which guarantees flight engineer pay only until normal retirement age, provides that salary will then 'be governed by the compensation plan applicable to the new position,' language that is clearly contrary to their position. See Miller v. Crystal Lake Park Dist., 47 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1995) ('A "legitimate claim of entitlement" is one that is legally enforceable-one based on statutes or regulations [or contracts] containing "explicitly mandatory language" that links "specified substantive predicates" to prescribed outcomes.') (internal citations omitted); Hohmeier v. Leyden Cmty. High Sch. Dist. 212, 954 F.2d 461, 464 (7th Cir. 1992) ('Property interests in employment may be created by express or implied contracts, municipal ordinances or state laws.'). Absent express language guaranteeing positions of comparable pay, 'an employer [has] no duty [under the ADEA] to give another job to an employee validly disqualified from holding his present job.' Tice, 288 F.3d at 315. Accordingly, we find that summary judgment was appropriate on the plaintiffs' 'as applied' challenge to Supplement U."

Affirmed.

07-1518 Miller v. American Airlines, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Schenkier, Mag. J., Williams, J.

Full Text