## Facts

- Nationwide Life Insurance Company (Nationwide) operated a fleet of private jets to transport executives, employees, and clients.
- Nationwide had a policy requiring its jet pilots to retire no later than age 62.
- Olaf Rasberg worked for Nationwide as a jet pilot.
- When Rasberg reached age 62, Nationwide required him to retire under the policy.
- Rasberg sued Nationwide under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging unlawful age discrimination.
- Nationwide moved for summary judgment, asserting that age was a lawful bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for its jet pilots.
- Nationwide argued that safe passenger transport required pilots to be in good health; that health can decline with age in ways that may affect pilot performance; and that Nationwide lacked a workable method to identify, pilot-by-pilot, developing age-related health or performance problems that could surface without warning, including during emergencies.
- Rasberg responded with evidence that certain medical and performance tests could help predict some health and performance problems in older pilots.

## Issues

1. Whether Nationwide’s mandatory retirement age of 62 for corporate jet pilots was permissible under the ADEA as a BFOQ reasonably necessary to the operation of Nationwide’s private-jet program.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where Rasberg presented evidence that some testing could identify some age-related risks in older pilots.

## Decision

- The court ruled for Nationwide on its summary-judgment motion.
- The court held that, on the record presented, Nationwide’s age-62 rule for its jet pilots fell within the ADEA’s BFOQ exception because the qualification was tied to passenger safety and Nationwide showed limits on effective individual screening for the full range of relevant risks.
- The court determined Rasberg’s evidence about available testing did not require a trial because it did not sufficiently refute Nationwide’s showing that an age limit was needed to manage safety risks that could not be reliably detected in advance on an individual basis.

## Legal Principles

- The ADEA generally bars employers from taking adverse action “because of” age, but it allows age-based criteria where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business. 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1).
- The BFOQ exception is applied narrowly, and the employer bears the burden to justify an age cutoff with evidence tied to job duties and business needs.
- In safety-sensitive work, “normal operation” may include the safe transport of passengers, and a safety justification can support a BFOQ where the employer shows a meaningful risk of sudden or hard-to-detect incapacity.
- An employer may rely on an age limit where it shows that individual testing cannot practically and reliably identify the full set of conditions that could cause unsafe performance, especially where risks may arise abruptly.
- On summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present evidence that creates a genuine dispute on whether the age cutoff is reasonably necessary; evidence that some tests can detect some problems may be insufficient if it does not address the employer’s claim that significant safety risks remain hard to predict.

## Conclusion

Rasberg v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co. addresses whether a private employer could require corporate jet pilots to retire at age 62 without violating the ADEA. Nationwide defended its policy as a BFOQ grounded in passenger safety and the limits of available, individualized screening to detect developing age-related health or performance problems that could impair a pilot, particularly in emergencies. The court ruled for Nationwide at the summary-judgment stage, finding the age-based rule justified under the ADEA’s BFOQ exception on the record presented.


Rasberg v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 671 F. Supp. 494 (1987)