The oil company Exxon Mobil Corp. employs 27 pilots to fly its fleet of corporate planes. In 1999, Exxon Mobil instituted a company-wide policy requiring that its pilots retire at the age of 60. In 2006, the EEOC filed a complaint against Exxon on behalf of two of the company’s pilot employees. The complaint alleged that the policy discriminated against the two pilots due to their age in violation of the ADEA. The EEOC argued that research has shown that “nothing medically significant or special happens when an individual reaches age 60” that could justify Exxon’s policy. Exxon contested this argument, claiming that the restriction was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) because pilots experience physiological or psychological deterioration as they age that prevents them from performing their job duties safely. To support the BFOQ defense, Exxon pointed to the fact that the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) prohibits commercial pilots from flying after the age of 60. The existence of the FAA rule is sufficient evidence that the policy is a BFOQ, Exxon argued. The District Court agreed with Exxon, while the Fifth Circuit vacated that judgment, holding that there should have been a “more searching inquiry” into the rationale of the original FAA rule. On remand, the District Court again ruled in favor of Exxon, finding that, while the EEOC had shown that the “risk of sudden incapacitation and health deterioration with age” is rare, the agency does not contest its reality. Moreover, the EEOC failed to show that Exxon could test for this risk on an individual basis. (EEOC v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 06-CV-1732, N.D. Tex.). Are you persuaded that Exxon has established a valid BFOQ defense for its policy? Why could Exxon not test its pilots individually and why is the position of pilot any different from other safety-related positions, such as bus drivers, or even air traffic controllers?