Court Opinion

ID: 9392899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 17:01:00.631728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.785686
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               MAY 8 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT KINCHELOE; VONNA                          No.   22-15726
RUDINE; SANDRA
CHRISTAFFERSON, on behalf of                     D.C. No. 5:21-cv-00515-BLF
themselves and all others similarly
situated,
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
              Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

              Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                  Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted April 21, 2023
                            San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Appellants are three former flight attendants who appeal the district court’s

dismissal of their Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(“ADEA”) claim. They challenge American Airlines’ March 2020 Voluntary

Early Out Program (“VEOP”).

      The ADEA contains a safe harbor for bona fide early retirement programs.

See 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(2)(B)(ii). An early retirement program is not an adverse

employment action unless the employee can establish it amounts to a constructive

discharge, i.e., that conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would

have felt compelled to resign. See Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 141

(2004); Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir. 2007).

      Appellants have alleged that they were constructively discharged in March

2020 when American Airlines discouraged them from wearing face masks and

denied leaves of absence and reduced work schedules until enough flight

attendants accepted the VEOP. The VEOP was a response to the extraordinary

drop in demand for air travel caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The

employment conditions imposed were consistent with federal policy guidelines at

that time. To constitute constructive discharge, there must be intolerable working

conditions that are “a result of discrimination.” Poland, 494 F.3d at 1184 (quoting

Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 930 (9th Cir. 2000)). Even assuming

the federal policy guidelines were unreasonable, the situation was not attributable

to any conduct by American Airlines.

                                          2
      The district court correctly ruled that Appellants had not made out a

violation of the ADEA.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3