Viewing page 3 of 35

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

clearly proven that the only qualification lacking is that he is over sixty years of age. And the contention that Complainant's employment as such is in violation of the agreement between Respondent and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) is meaningless, since both the Eastern Airline policy which preceded the agreement, and the provision of the agreement itself which incorporates such policy are themselves arbitrary, and without a reasonable necessity as a basis therefore, thus becoming a mere subterfuge to deprive Complainant of his basic human rights in violation of Section 296 (3a) of the New York Human Rights Law.

In order to isolate the basic issue more clearly, and quite simply stated, Complainant, Captain Michael A. Gitt, is not, for the purpose of this proceeding and action, challenging the Federal Aviation Agency regulation promulgated on December 1, 1959, by Elwood R. Quesada, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, prohibiting any pilot who has reached his sixtieth birthday from piloting revenue passenger, on-line flights (14C.F.R. Sec 40, 260 (b)). Complainant's sole contention is that a policy of Eastern Airlines, which policy was subsequently incorporated as a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between Respondent and the A.L.P.A., causes an arbitrary and discriminatory deprivation of complainant's right to employment solely because of his age, in violation of Section 296 (3a) of the New York Human Rights Law. Concisely stated pursuant to the authority of this policy and agreement provision, Respondent airline requires, in effect, that all persons employed by them as aviation instructors, supervisory pilots,

-2-