EXHIBIT 11 DETERMINATION AFTER INVESTIGATION Janice Austin Lamer v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. CASE NO. CA-11459-65 J. Edward Conway, Investigating Commissioner April 20, 1966 The above-entitled verified complaint is one of several complaints involving the job category of airline stewardess, each of which charges that, in dismissing the complainant from employment as an airline stewardess when she reached a given age (in the instant case, age 35) respondent airline company discriminated against the complainant because of age, in violation of the New York Law Against Discrimination. The respondent airline company herein does not dispute the charge that the basis of the above-named complainant's dismissal was her reaching a given chronological age or that complainant would have been retained in her position as airline stewardess except for respondent's policy setting a maximum age for continued employment as airline stewardess. There has been no presentation of any substantial evidence or argument that the individual work history of the complainant had any material bearing on the termination of her employment as an airline stewardess. The central issue is therefore quite clear, namely, does the airline violate the New York Law Against Discrimination when it establishes a company policy setting a special arbitrary chronological age for continued employment of its airline stewardesses at any age below that of the standard mandatory retirement age for company employees, and applies such policy without reference to the qualifications of the individual employee? Full opportunity has been afforded to respondent to provide data and argument on the merits. To the extent to which respondent has availed itself of this opportunity, respondent has not submitted, in support of the special age limit which it has established, persuasive evidence such as might validate any blanket bona fide occupational qualification. Further, the information submitted by respondent does not furnish any warrant for the grant of a bona fide occupational qualification to it because of any special factors relating to the duties performed by the particular complainant named herein. Accordingly, based on the evidence before me, I find probable cause in the above-entitled case and will now go forward with the further procedures authorized by the Law Against Discrimination. To: J. EDWARD CONWAY, Investigating Commissioner. Mrs. Janice Austin Lamer, Complainant, 505 Garnett Road, Joppa, Maryland 21085 Trans World Airlines, Inc., Respondent, 605 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Attention: Mr. C. C. Tillinghast, Jr., President EXHIBIT 12 DETERMINATION AFTER INVESTIGATION Anayat El Shall v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. CASE NO. CA-12314-66 Bessie A. Buchanan, Investigating Commissioner May 2, 1966 In her complaint filed on January 24, 1966, complainant charged respondent of employment, in violation of the New York Law Against Discrimination. Specifically, complainant alleged that respondent's policy sets an age ceiling of 35 years for continued employment as airline hostess, in line with which respondent informed her that she would be removed from flight duty in February 1966, when she would become 35. Complainant further alleges that no similar special age ceiling is applied to the pursers, whose job duties are largely similar and whose incumbents are all male. Subsequently, on 2/28/66, complainant was removed by respondent from flight service, put on "leave of absence," and offered ground employment. Respondent has confirmed to the Commission that complainant's removal from flight service was based solely on its policy setting a maximum age of 35 for continued employment as hostess and indicated that had complainant's performance been in question she would have been discharged, not granted a leave of absence and offered other ground employment. The first question before me is that relating to the charge of discrimination because of age. This question has been considered recently by the Commission in three other cases of airline hostesses in substantially similar situations, one of whom was employed by the same respondent as complainant; probable cause was found to credit the allegations of each of the three complaints charging such age discrimination. A further field investigation was made in the instant matter pursuant to my direction, including an invitation to respondent to offer for my consideration any and all pertinent information on the merits as respondent might wish to provide; respondent has declined such opportunity to provide additional information on the merits. I find there is probable cause to credit the charge of discrimination based on age. Before proceeding to the second charge, I believe it may be useful to clarify one aspect of the significance of this finding. A determination that an airline may not, under the New York Law Against Discrimination, remove an airline hostess from flight duty based solely on her reaching a special chronological age, without regard to her individual qualifications, does not mean an elimination or change in lawful standards of individual qualifications-such as those relating to the maintenance of attractive personal appearance and the ability to do the work involved in the particular job category. The second charge relates to sex discrimination. Respondent has confirmed that (a) there is no special chronological age at which pursers are removed from flight duty-prior to normal retirement at age 60; (b) the duties of the purser, although including some additional responsibilities largely clerical in nature, are similar to those of the hostess; (c) the pay scale of the purser is significantly above that of the hostess; and (d) respondent has hired only males as pursers since World War II. On respondent airline, the purser is required to speak two foreign languages. Complainant has for several years worked for respondent from its bases in Egypt and France, and does speak both Arabic and French. If there were no sex bar to her promotion to purser, without regard to the question of age discrimination re hostesses, there is a substantial argument that complainant could have continued flying by securing a promotion to purser. Respondent has in the past year increased its purser complement, and expects it to continue to increase in size. Respondent points to the following provision in its current contract with the union as justification for its limitation, in practice, of the purser position to males. Article XIII (G) reads: . . . future vacancies within the Flight Purser category will be filled either by qualified Hostesses in order of seniority, the Company retaining the right to resort to outside hire of new female employees in the absence of receipt by the Company of sufficient bids of such qualified Hostesses, or by hiring new male employees at the option of the Company." [Emphasis added.] According to respondent, this clause recognizes that hostesses could qualify for the purser position, but also provides respondent with an option to hire males only; and respondent has seen fit to exercise this option. With the 1965 amendments to the Law Against Discrimination prohibiting discrimination based on sex, such a contract provision-even on its face becomes of doubtful legality. I find probable cause with respect to the charge of discrimination based on sex. I shall now go forward with the further procedures authorized by the Law Against Discrimination. To: Mrs. Anayat El Shall, Complainant, 6700 192nd Street, Flushing, L. I., New York Trans World Airlines, Inc., Respondent, 605 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Attention: Mr. C. C. Tillinghast, Jr., President EXHIBIT 13 THE AIRWAYS CLUB, NEW YORK CITY AIRLINE STEWARDESS SURVEY 1. Do you think that the airlines should have age ceilings for stewardesses? Yes Don't care 2. Would the age of the stewardess matter to you? Yes No Don't care 3. Do you prefer a stewardess of a particular group? Yes No Don't care 4. If you answered yes to No. 3, which group do you prefer? 18 to 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 to 40 40 and above 5. Should a stewardess be unmarried? Yes No Don't care EXHIBIT 14 Dear Member As you may know, there's a current controversy about ins the age of stewardesses and their continued employment-re by the airlines. May we have your views? (Circle "y" for yes, "N" for no and "DC" for don't care.) 1. Do you think that the airlines should have age ceilings for stewardesses? 2. Would the age of the stewardess matter to you? 3. Do you prefer a stewardess of a particular age group? Y N DC Y N DC Y N DC Dear Member As you may know, there's a current controversy about d the age of stewardesses and their continued employment by the airlines. May we have your views? (Circle "cli for yes, "N" for no and "DC" for don't care.), 1. Do you think that the airlines should have age ceilings for stewardesses?- 2. Would the age of the stewardess matter to you? 3. Do you prefer a stewardess of a particular age group? DC Y DC YN DC 4. If you answered yes to #3, which group do you prefer? (Circle one.) 18-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40-above 5. Should a stewardess De unmarried? NDC * There is need for maturity, Yoow. how" training for helpful 1. Do you think that the airlines should 2. Would the age of the stewardess matter to you? if too young for * 3. Do you prefer a stewardess of a particular age group? about personnel Y N DC *(Y N DC N DC 4. If you answered yes to #3, which group do you prefer? unmarried? Signature Y N Member # See enclosat commcut page AGE I DH's Lane an WERE HINDED. DITTO MAXIMAL STATUS, Dear Member- sritimsolley to the conSAL, COSMOTE fuary by the airlines. May we have your views? (Circle "Y" TREM for yes, "N" for no and "DC" for don't care.) 1. Do you think that the airlines should 2. Would the age of the stewardess matter 3. Do you prefer a stewardess of a particular age group? The News will pay $10 for each question accepted for this column. Today's award goes to Murray Oken, 510 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn. THE QUESTION Many airlines will not permit stewardesses to remain on the job beyond the age of 35. Does a woman lose her glamour at 35? WHERE ASKED |