Your language toward Justice Craig is becoming offensive IMO. You can disagree without slander? No?
His ruling is logical. You may not agree with it. But it is still logical. Well thought out and articulate.
(1) that the employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
ICAO over under rule
(2) that the employer adopted the particular standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
ICAO over under rule impact on scheduling.
(3) that the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that legitimate work-related purpose. To show that the standard is reasonably necessary, it must be demonstrated that it is impossible to accommodate individual employees sharing the characteristics of the claimant without imposing undue hardship upon the employer.
AC has two choices for accommodation that Justice Craig determined both amounted to hardship.
1) Hire more people. Add extra positions. Doesn't guarantee under 60 pilots will even get the position. Considered hardship
2) Negotiate with ACPA changes to the collective agreement that strip seniority rights. The bargaining capital that would take he considered to be hardship. We all know ACPA will demand that everyone still get paid what they could hold based on seniority rights, not where they are assigned due to scheduling. Considered hardship.
So the logic is there. It is whether you agree with it. Yes it is very pro business all of a sudden. Coughharpergov't. Mr. Hall has a good point. The ruling allows employers to contract out of human rights. With that said I think we have heard repeatedly that at some point human rights and labor law will collide.
It looks like it just did.