## Facts

- Denis C. F. Yap worked as a federal air traffic controller for the FAA and began employment in June 1973.
- Federal law created different retirement regimes for air traffic controllers based on hire date and retirement-system coverage.
- Controllers hired between May 16, 1972, and December 31, 1986, were subject to 5 U.S.C. § 8335(a), requiring separation at age 56, with a discretionary exemption for controllers with “exceptional skills and experience” up to age 61.
- Controllers hired before May 16, 1972, could remain employed without a mandatory retirement age while they stayed in the relevant retirement system.
- Controllers hired on or after January 1, 1987, were covered by a later retirement system that generally required separation at age 56 but allowed some controllers who lacked 20 years of service at age 56 to work until completing 20 years.
- As Yap neared age 56, he made at least an informal request to remain employed beyond age 56 but did not submit a formal application for an exemption under the governing regulations.
- The FAA separated Yap from service when he turned 56 pursuant to the mandatory retirement statute, after roughly 26 years of service.
- Yap sued the Secretary of Transportation alleging (1) age discrimination under the ADEA and (2) unequal treatment violating equal protection principles under the Fifth Amendment.
- The government moved for judgment on the pleadings; because materials outside the pleadings were presented, the court treated the motion as one for partial summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory mandatory retirement provisions for FAA air traffic controllers, as applied to Yap’s separation at age 56, violate the ADEA.
2. Whether the differential statutory treatment among controller cohorts (based on hire date and retirement system), including provisions that allowed some later-hired controllers to work past age 56 to complete service credit, violates equal protection principles incorporated through the Fifth Amendment.

## Decision

- The court granted partial summary judgment for the Secretary on Yap’s ADEA claim challenging the mandatory retirement scheme.
- The court granted partial summary judgment for the Secretary on Yap’s Fifth Amendment equal protection claim.
- The court upheld Congress’s controller-specific retirement statutes requiring separation at age 56 for Yap’s cohort, subject to a narrow discretionary exemption.

## Legal Principles

- A specific federal statute setting retirement terms for a particular federal occupation controls over more general statutory protections absent clear congressional intent to the contrary.
- Congress may impose mandatory retirement for safety-sensitive federal positions through occupation-specific retirement statutes.
- Age-based classifications and retirement-system cohort distinctions are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny when no suspect class or fundamental right is involved.
- Under rational-basis review, a classification is valid if it is rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest, including safety, administrative workability, transition rules between retirement systems, and benefit/cost design.

## Conclusion

The court held that the controller-specific mandatory retirement statute requiring separation at age 56 for Yap’s cohort was not invalid under the ADEA and that Congress’s differing retirement rules for different hire-date cohorts and retirement systems had rational bases sufficient to defeat a Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge.


Yap v. Slater, 128 F. Supp. 2d 672 (D. Haw. 2000)