Denver, CO – May 12, 2021 – Mountain States Legal Foundation today scored a major victory in its Brigida v. Buttigieg case (formerly Brigida v. Chao), a class action against the Federal Aviation Administration for race-based discrimination against certain applicants for Air Traffic Controller jobs in the Obama era.
Despite the fact that the applicants spent years going to school and studying in order to pass FAA’s rigorous qualification tests only to face a roadblock erected by the Obama administration in order to benefit less qualified applicants of different races, the FAA tried to dismiss part of the case. Thankfully, the court quickly denied the FAA’s motion after hearing oral argument on the matter, in a major victory for MSLF clients.
The court stated that the allegations were “precisely the kind of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barrier to employment and professional development that Title VII prohibits.” The court went on to note that the allegations “mirror those in cases that have found Title VII violations where an application process was redesigned solely to change the racial composition of the successful applicant pool.”
Plaintiffs Andrew Brigida and Matthew Douglas-Cook, like numerous other individuals who are part of the potential class action, had previously met all requirements to be “well qualified” applicants, but were passed over as job applicants on the basis of race in favor of less qualified applicants selected for their “biographical” data, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The FAA rejected the applications and test scores of thousands of previously qualified, ready-to-hire candidates, like Brigida and Douglas-Cook, simply because they did not fit the racially-skewed biographical profile.
At issue in the hearing was whether Plaintiffs Brigida and Douglas-Cook were applicants who suffered an adverse employment action when the FAA decided to invalidate their qualifying test scores.
The FAA argued that these individuals could not be considered “applicants” until they submitted an application to the FAA in response to an official job opening, known as a vacancy announcement. Any actions taken prior to that, the agency claimed, were merely pre-qualification steps, and should not be viewed as part of the job application process. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that the air traffic controller application process is a multi-step process and, by signing up for and taking the qualification test, called the AT-SAT they had initiated that process.
The FAA develops, administers, and validates the AT-SAT, screens who is eligible to take the test, and requires all air traffic controller applicants to take and pass the test to be considered for employment. AT-SAT scores are valid for three years, accounting for the sporadic nature of FAA vacancy announcements, and Plaintiffs were entitled to utilize their scores until their eligibility was exhausted. Plaintiffs were never afforded that opportunity, however, as the FAA invalidated all eligible AT-SAT scores as part of its new racially biased hiring policy.
The federal judge’s order opens the door to class certification and discovery on the merits of the case, bringing Plaintiffs one step closer to achieving justice and accountability. “Today’s decision shows that the FAA can’t escape liability simply by elevating form over substance,” said Mountain States Legal Foundation General Counsel Zhonette Brown, who argued the matter before the District Court for the District of Columbia. “When our clients suffered race discrimination, they had already spent years carefully studying and preparing to become Air Traffic Controllers. The FAA would have you believe that they were the equivalent of individuals who were just scanning job boards but who never actually wanted a job. That just won’t fly, so to speak.”
Plaintiff Andrew Brigida called the ruling a win for the many “talented and qualified” applicants who were denied an opportunity to become air traffic controllers due to FAA’s discriminatory hiring policies and still need to be made whole. “I’m pleased that the court rejected FAA’s repeated attempts to throw out our lawsuit before we get to the merits of our case,” said Brigida. “We still have a way to go and work to do if we’re going to hold the government accountable for prioritizing race-based hiring over the safety of air travelers, but this ruling is a big step in the right direction.”
Follow this link for a case summary.
Follow these links to read the latest rulings.