On May 26, 2017, the Court denied the FAA’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claims of intentional discrimination.
In 2005, the FAA conducted a reduction in force (RIF) by which it terminated its Flight Service Controller workforce and contracted this service out to Lockheed Martin. The vast majority of these workers were over the age of 40, and many lost their federal pension benefits. This lawsuit alleges that the FAA’s decision to conduct the RIF was motivated by age discrimination and had a discriminatory impact on older workers, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
This lawsuit was filed on September 30th 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of hundreds of Flight Service Controllers who were terminated by the FAA through the RIF. Discovery was conducted, and the parties filed motions for summary judgment in 2007 asking the Court to rule on the case without a trial, but the Court did not rule on those motions. In April 2016, the case was reassigned to a new judge.
Cohen Milstein, as well as co-counsel from The Law Offices of Gary M. Gilbert & Associates, P.C., joined the case in April 2016, and filed renewed summary judgments, as well as motions to permit more former Flight Service Controllers who were affected by the RIF to join the lawsuit.
The original lawsuit is styled: Breen v. Chao, 1:05-cv-00654, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
For More Information
If you are a former Flight Service Controller who was over 40 years old at the time of the RIF in 2005, or if you have information that might assist us in contacting these workers, please contact our co-counsel at The Law Offices of Gary M. Gilbert & Associates, P.C. NOTE: This case is not a class action, and therefore requires the participation of every individual former Flight Service Controller who would like to be a plaintiff in this case.