Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—S.D. Ohio: Federal law precludes pilots’ discrimination claims with regard to mandatory retirement age, (Dec 9, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

In its enactment of 49 U.S.C. § 44729—entitled “Age Standards for Pilots”—Congress allows for air carriers to implement a 70-year-old age limit for pilots in certain circumstances.

Dismissing a group of pilots’ ADEA and breach of CBA claims, a federal district court in Ohio determined that federal law barred their claims for age discrimination and that their CBA-violation claim was a minor dispute and thus could not be resolved by the court. As to the ADEA claim, the choice by NetJets to adopt a mandatory age-70 retirement policy was “undoubtedly an action taken in conformance with 49 U.S.C. § 44729,” and because the age discrimination claim was an employment law claim, it was barred by the statute, said the court (Langley v. NetJets Aviation, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-209 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2025)).

The plaintiffs in this case are nine private charter jet pilots employed by NetJets, a jet charter and aircraft management company. The pilots have union membership with the NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots and entered into a CBA with NetJets on December 30, 2020. The CBA states that, “Neither [NetJets] nor the Union shall discriminate against any crewmembers covered by this Agreement on the basis of... age.”’

Age standards for pilots. In December 2022, Congress enacted 49 U.S.C. § 44729, which establishes age standards for airline pilots. The statute allows air carriers to implement a 70-year-old age limit for pilots in certain circumstances. It also states that amendments to a CBA to conform to the statute “shall be made by agreement of the air carrier and the designated bargaining representative of the pilots of the air carrier.”

Retirement policy. Shortly after the statute’s enactment, NetJets adopted a policy requiring its pilots to retire by the age of 70, effective January 10, 2024. According to the pilots, NetJets cited “safety” as a reason for adopting this new policy. The pilots also alleged that NetJets enacted this policy without meeting with and coming to an agreement with the designated bargaining representative of the pilots.

Grievance. In February 2023, the union filed a grievance with NetJets concerning the retirement policy, alleging that it violated the CBA. On December 26, 2023, the System Board of Adjustment denied the grievance. Since then, as alleged by the pilots, NetJets has begun to terminate affected pilots under its policy.

Complaint. Subsequently, the pilots filed this lawsuit. Their second amended complaint asserts claims for: (1) age discrimination in violation of the ADEA and the CBA; and (2) retaliation without reference to a statute.

On June 4, 2025, the pilots sought leave to file a third amended complaint to add the union as a defendant and requested to conduct limited discovery. NetJets opposed the motion for leave to amend on futility and prejudice grounds. A magistrate judge denied the pilots’ motion.

Here, the court first considered the pilots’ objection to the magistrate judge’s decision denying their motion for leave to amend and then considered NetJets’s motion to dismiss the pilots’ claims.

Objection to magistrate judge’s order. In seeking leave to amend their complaint for a third time, the pilots sought to add the union as a defendant and to bring an unfair labor practices claim against it for allegedly colluding with NetJets to lobby for the enactment of 49 U.S.C. § 44729.

Objecting to the magistrate judge’s order denying their motion, the pilots asserted that they were seeking to add a new claim against the union under the RLA, not the NLRA. However, according to the language of their proposed third amended complaint, they state that, “Plaintiffs bring their complaint against the Union based on unfair labor practices under section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act.” Although the RLA is referenced in two other places in the proposed complaint, those references were unrelated to the new claim. Indeed, observed the court, the section titled “Claim against the Union” fails to mention either the RLA or the NLRA.

Despite the pilots’ attempt to use this ambiguity to show that they always intended to sue under the RLA, the only instance where they were clear about their proposed claim against the union referred to the NLRA. Because the NLRA expressly excludes airline-industry labor issues from its purview, the magistrate judge’s conclusion was in accordance with the law. As such, the pilots’ objection to the order was overruled.

Retaliation claim. Turning to NetJets’s motion to dismiss, the court first considered the pilots’ claim for retaliation and declaratory relief. Because the pilots failed to address NetJets’s motion to dismiss this claim and request for relief, the court considered it to be abandoned and granted the motion to dismiss.

ADEA claim precluded. Next, the court addressed the pilots’ ADEA claim. Here, the court found that the plain text of 49 U.S.C. § 44729 precluded this claim. According to the text of the statute, “An action taken in conformance with this section... may not serve as the basis for liability or relief in a proceeding, brought under any employment law or regulation, before any court or agency of the United States or of any State or locality.” 49 U.S.C. § 44729(e)(2) (emphasis added). The ADEA is an employment law, explained the court.

NetJets’s choice to adopt a mandatory age-70 retirement policy is “undoubtedly an action taken in conformance with 49 U.S.C. § 44729(e)(2),” said the court. And because the pilots’ ADEA claim is an employment law claim, it is barred by the statute. Thus, they could not successfully plead that adoption of the mandatory retirement policy was in violation of the ADEA. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss the ADEA claim.

CBA breach. Finally, the court addressed the pilots’ claim that NetJets breached the terms of the CBA covering age discrimination. NetJets argued that the pilots could not bring this claim before the court because it had already been decided by mandatory binding arbitration, as required by the RLA. The court agreed.

This claim had already been decided by the System Board of Adjustment, explained the court, which found that 49 U.S.C. § 44729(e)(2) bars the pilots from asserting a violation of the CBA. The Board went on to interpret the CBA to conclude that NetJets’s mandatory retirement policy was not discriminatory but rather based on safety concerns.

Because the pilots alleged that NetJets’s policy was in violation of the CBA, any such determination involves the application or interpretation of the CBA. Accordingly, this claim fell under the rubric of a minor dispute and, as such, could not be resolved by the court. Thus, the court granted the motion to dismiss this claim.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-209.

Judge: Sargus, E., Jr.

Attorneys: Daniel G. Gibbons (Gibbons Law) and Jonathan Lawrence Hilton (Hilton Parker) for Gregory Langley, Jim Mohr, and Hiram Scott. Joshua E. Pittman (Jones Day) for NetJets Aviation Inc.

Companies: NetJets Aviation Inc.

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination Labor Arbitration Bargaining UnionsMembers Procedure Retaliation OhioNews GCNNews