In the case of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston et al., 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer's violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) must be willful for liquidated damages to be awarded. The dispute arose when TWA implemented a policy allowing pilots who were downgraded due to age restrictions from captain positions to regain their seniority if they had previously served as flight engineers; however, this did not apply to those who hadn't held such position before becoming captains. Several demoted pilots sued TWA and their union claiming this policy was discriminatory under ADEA because it favored younger pilots with less service over older ones with more experience but no prior flight engineer status. The court found that while TWA’s action violated ADEA by discriminating against older workers based on age, it wasn’t done willfully since there was a reasonable belief that its actions complied with law given its reliance on bona fide occupational qualification exception within ADEA which allows employers certain leeway in employment decisions where age is reasonably related job performance or safety concerns.

In the dissenting opinion for Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston et al., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). He argued that TWA’s policy of denying flight engineers who were demoted from captain or first officer positions due to age-related restrictions access to a more favorable seniority system was discriminatory and violated ADEA. The majority held that this discrimination was permissible because it fell under an exception in ADEA for "bona fide occupational qualifications." However, Brennan contended that this exception should be narrowly interpreted and should not apply here as there is no evidence showing being younger than 60 is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to perform job duties of flight engineer effectively and safely. Furthermore, he criticized the court's decision on procedural grounds arguing it had overstepped its role by making factual determinations better left to lower courts.