rimination, the Court considered the scope of the ‘inherent requirements’ exemption. In this case, Qantas argued that its policy requiring pilots to retire at the age of 60 was a genuine and reasonable inherent requirement of being a pilot because:
· There were safety concerns associated with allowing pilots to continue to work after turning 60; and
· The Convention on International Civil Aviation barred captains aged 60 or over from flying many of the routes which Qantas pilots might be asked to fly.
The High Court found in Qantas’ favour on the basis of the second argument – that is, it was an inherent requirement of a pilot’s position to be able to fly over countries which were signatory to the Convention.
This decision is important because it establishes the principle that the ability to perform the inherent requirements of the position is not limited to being able to physically perform the duties. The High Court held that the ability to perform the inherent requirements of the position also required the employee to do the job within the particular operational setting of the employer.
In another case involving Qantas, Blatchford v Qantas Airways Limited (1997) EOC 92-888, it was held that selection criteria for new employees which are based on age are likely to be found discriminatory. In this case, applicants for the position of pilot were subject to a particular criterion which assigned points to the applicants based on their age (applicants aged 21-24 years scored four points; those aged 32 years and over scored one point). Qantas argued that older applicants would have a shorter period of employment and so the airline would have less opportunity to recoup its training costs. In concluding that application of this selection criterion involved unlawful age discrimination, the New South Wales Equal Opportunity Tribunal concluded that anti-discrimination law did not make any exceptions for economic rationalism.
In another case considering the legality of recruitment criteria, Dewan v Main Roads WA (2005) EOC 93-362, the Western Australian Equal Opportunity Tribunal held that a job advertisement that sought to recruit ‘recent graduates’ did not amount to age discrimination against graduates over 25, even though a majority of recent graduates would be younger than 25. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed a complaint from a 45 year-old engineer of indirect age discrimination. The Tribunal found that the emphasis on recent graduation could apply to different age groups and did not necessarily demonstrate an intention to recruit young employees.
Other recent Australian age discrimination decisions include:
· Talbot v Sperling Tourism and Investments Pty Ltd  NSWADT 67: successful age discrimination claim by bus driver told to cease driving once he reached his early 70s.
· Willmott v Woolworths Limited  QCAT 601: large national employer’s recruitment application form, requiring applicants to provide their date of birth, found to be discriminatory under Queensland age discrimination prohibition.
Allen v Newlands Coal Pty Ltd & See (No 2)  QCAT 522: mine worker failed to substantiate claim that employer denied him training opportunities on the basis of being over 50 years of age.