"x x x.
In 2004, a group of female flight attendants filed a gender discrimination case against national carrier Philippine Airlines (PAL). After 11 years, the Makati Regional Trial Court finally ruled in their favor.
The class suit stems from PAL’s policy which “compulsorily retired” stewardesses at age 55, while stewards could retire at 60. The provision is part of PAL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, though no reason was provided for the discrepancy.
Meanwhile, flight attendants hired after the year 2000 are required to retire at an even younger age of 40. However, in management positions, the retirement age for both women and men is 65.
In May 2015, the court declared PAL’s provision null and void, awarding around 1,000 affected flight attendants P100,000 each.
x x x.
Kapunan called the case a “legal pingpong,” stretching for years at the expense of women. The case was tossed from the lower court to the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, and back. At first, PAL wanted the issue to remain a “labor case,” but Kapunan insisted that this was a case of gender-based discrimination.
x x x.
In 2010, the Philippine Commission on Women also urged the flag carrier to end its "discriminatory policies."
Victory for all Filipino women
Kapunan hopes that PAL would follow the court decision and no longer file a motion for reconsideration. She calls the case a "huge victory" for everyone who has been "deprived of employment and robbed of their dignity" as a result of gender-based discrimination.
x x x.
Female PAL flight attendants experienced other forms of gender-based discrimination in the past. In the 1970s, they were discouraged from getting married and getting pregnant.
"Some had to resign because they got pregnant," said former flight attendant Dolores Panas. She was among the first in PAL to experience paid maternity leaves in the late 1970s.
Rappler tried contacting PAL. It has yet to release an official statement on the development. – Rappler.com.
x x x."
