Yap v. Slater

Congress created three different retirement systems for federal air-traffic controllers, each with different rules and different benefits. Which system governed a particular controller depended on when the controller was hired. The first group, controllers hired before 1972, had no mandatory retirement age. The second group, controllers hired between 1972 and 1986, had a mandatory retirement age of 56. However, a controller in the second group could work until age 61 if the controller received an exceptional-employee waiver. The third group, controllers hired in 1987 or later, was also generally forced to retire at age 56. However, if a controller in the third group had not completed 20 years of service by age 56, the controller could continue to work until 20 years were completed. Denis Yap (plaintiff) began working as a federal air-traffic controller in 1973, which meant that he was in the second group. As he approached retirement age, Yap made an informal request for a retirement waiver that was denied, but he never formally requested an exceptional-employee waiver. When Yap turned 56, he was forced to retire after 26 years of service. Yap sued the secretary of the Department of Transportation (secretary) (defendant), arguing that the mandatory retirement age violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Yap also pointed out that faithful workers in the second group were forced to retire at age 56 although controllers who had been fired for illegally striking in 1981 and rehired after 1993 (and who, therefore, were in the third group) were sometimes allowed to work after age 56. Yap claimed that because the differential treatment of the two groups was not based on safety or loyalty concerns, the treatment was irrational in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The secretary moved for summary judgment on the ADEA and equal-protection claims.