Fields v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

ANDRE FIELDS, et al. Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al. Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-903-KSM

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 22, 2021

MEMORANDUM

Marston, J.

Plaintiffs Andre Fields, Kendall Green, and Andre Roundtree bring employment discrimination and civil conspiracy claims under state and federal law against their employer, Defendant American Airlines, Inc.^[1] American has moved to dismiss the third amended complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs' claims are either precluded under the doctrine of res judicata, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or must be dismissed because they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the relevant System Board of Adjustment.^[2] The Court held oral argument on the motion on July 29, 2021. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Factual Background

Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the relevant facts are as follows. American Airlines operates out of ten hubs in the United States, including one at the Philadelphia International Airport (“PHL”). (Doc. No. 44 at ¶ 9a.) Although American's national workforce is predominantly Caucasian, the airline's PHL workforce is 70% African American.^[3] (Id. at ¶ 16.) Fields Green, and Roundtree are African American men, each of whom has worked as a fleet service agent for American Airlines at PHL for more than 15 years. (Id. at ¶¶ 6b 7b, 8b.) In their third amended complaint, Plaintiffs identify numerous employment practices that they contend discriminate against them and the rest of the primarily African American workforce at American's PHL location. In particular, they point to the company's practice of top filling airplane lavatory tanks and allege overt racial discrimination in how managers dole out work assignments and pursue disciplinary actions, the existence of highly offensive racial statements and carvings in employee-only areas, and the placement of a stuffed gorilla in the employee break room. We describe each of these practices in turn.

A. Top Filling Airplane Lavatory Tanks

American Airlines provides bathrooms on its airplanes for passenger use. (Id. at ¶ 20.) At the end of each flight, ground service crew members in the fleet service department prepare the plane for the next flight by emptying each lavatory tank of human waste, cleaning the tank, and refilling it with a chemical agent known as “blue juice” or “blue water.” (Id. at ¶¶ 21-22.) Typically, the crew members use a lavatory truck to complete this process by pulling up beside the plane, using one hose to remove the waste, and a second hose to fill the lavatory tank with blue water from the bottom of the plane. (Id. at ¶¶ 24-25.) However, from around 2010 to 2017, some of the planes landing at PHL had broken intake valves, which made it impossible to fill the tanks with blue water from the bottom of the plane using the lavatory trucks. (Id. at ¶¶ 26, 39.)

Instead, managers directed fleet service agents to top fill the lavatory tanks using Deer Park/Nestle five-gallon jugs. (Id. at ¶ 28.) To do this, the agents would take empty jugs from the employee breakroom, fill the jugs with blue water, walk the jugs through the plane's cabin, and pour the blue water into each toilet. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that the “jug spouts often touched the toilet during the top filling process.” (Id.) And once the top filling process was complete, the five gallon jugs were placed on the lavatory trucks “next to or touching the hose that had been used to remove the plane's human waste, ” which was generally, “still [ ] dripping of human waste.” (Id. at ¶ 31.) The jugs were then returned to the break room and placed in the same area as the empty jugs awaiting pickup by Deer Park/Nestle drivers for return to commercial circulation. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-34.) Plaintiffs also allege that in some instances, American Airlines' fleet service managers would fill the jugs using non-potable water from a water station on the tarmac and then place the filled jugs back in the breakroom, where unsuspecting employees would place them on the water cooler. (Id. at ¶¶ 35-37.) On average, “approximately 8-10 Deer Park/Nestle five gallon jugs [were] used and returned each day” in this manner. (Id. at ¶ 41.)

This top filling process, which violated the American Air Ground Operations Manual, Lavatory/Waste Section, was used solely at PHL. (Id. at ¶¶ 43-44.) And when “minority employees” protested the practice or complained to management, they were either ignored or threatened with termination. (Id. at ¶ 46.)

On September 21, 2015, Plaintiffs and other American Airlines employees at PHL sued American Airlines and multiple individual defendants in Pennsylvania state court alleging that its top filling practices were unsafe, reckless, and discriminatory. (See generally Doc. No. 47-3, 2015 State Court Complaint; Doc. No. 47-4, 2015 State Court Second Am. Complaint.^[4]) They brought a class action claim for medical monitoring, along with individual counts for negligence, battery, public nuisance, violations of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, fraud, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract. (Doc. No. 47-4 at Counts I-VIII.) On January 13, 2016, the defendants removed the case to this Court, and on August 12, 2016, the Honorable Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro granted the defendants' motion to dismiss after finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a class action claim for medical monitoring and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the remaining state law counts. See Smith v. Am. Airlines, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-156, 2016 WL 8735710, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2016) (“Smith I”). On March 23, 2017, the plaintiffs returned to state court with most of their remaining claims, ^[5] all of which were dismissed with prejudice by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on June 1, 2017. Smith v. Am. Airlines, No. 170302506, Doc. No. 21 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pl. March 23, 2017) (“Smith II”).

B. Offensive Conduct and Comments

Toward the end of 2016, and while Smith I and Smith II were pending, Plaintiffs began noticing deeply offensive racial carvings and statements on the walls of employee-only areas, including breakrooms and bathrooms:

• “Fuck you niggers;”

• “All niggers should go back to Africa;”

• “I hate niggers;” and

• A black face drawing next to the statement, “Do you like watermelon?”

(Doc. No. 44 at ¶ 47; see also Doc. Nos. 44-1, 44-2.) Additionally, a stuffed monkey was also left on top of the refrigerator in the break room. (Doc. No. 44 at ¶ 47; see also Doc. No. 44-3.) Green and Roundtree complained to managers in their units about the offensive cravings and statements and the stuffed animal, but no action was taken. (Doc. No. 44 at ¶¶ 49, 50.)

In addition, Fields and Green allege that PHL managers directed racially offensive comments toward them. Duty Manager Don Logan told Fields, “Boy, put them [luggage] in the cart” (id. ¶ 51), and Ramp Manager William Jackson referred to Green as a “Black Panther, ” and told Green that he'd been instructed to “write [Green's] black ass[ ] up” for disciplinary violations. (Id. at ¶ 52.)

Plaintiffs also allege that they are generally treated differently than their Caucasian coworkers. (Id. at ¶ 60.) Among other things, they are “routinely and systematically given work assignments that have heavier workloads and/or less agents assigned to their work areas than non-protected class members.” (Id.; see also Id. at ¶ 53 (alleging that unidentified lead ramp agents often “tamper[ed] with the work schedules and ma[de] false statements against Fields and his work schedule”); id. at ¶ 61b (alleging that Green was assigned to service flights that arrive in PHL before his scheduled shift start time).) For example, Fields alleges that he was frequently given subpar equipment and insufficient time to properly perform his duties. (Id. at ¶ 61d.) He was also frequently assigned to understaffed baggage carousels with heavier workloads, while Caucasian ramp agents were assigned to carousels with lighter workloads and additional agents. (Id. at ¶ 61c.) Roundtree likewise alleges that his work assignments were changed after the bidding process closed to favor Caucasian employees. (Id. at ¶ 61g.)

Plaintiffs have also been “subjected to accelerated, excessive and adverse disciplinary actions” to which Caucasian employees were not subject. (Id. at ¶ 61.) For example, Green and Fields allege that managers failed to follow progressive disciplinary levels when punishing them, and instead, skipped levels to accelerate discipline and potential firing. (Id. at ¶ 61a.) Green also alleges that upper management punished him for expressing concerns about safety and fair treatment (id. at ¶ 61e), and that American Airlines' Human Resources department failed to investigate his internal complaints of racial discrimination (id. at ¶ 61g). Last, Plaintiffs allege generally that African American employees were given Last Chance Agreements that contained accelerated and substantially more restrictive provisions than those given to similarly situated Caucasian employees. (Id. at ¶ 61h.)

Plaintiffs suggest that management took many of these actions, including the more difficult work assignments and accelerated disciplinary actions, in retaliation for their participation as named plaintiffs in the 2015 class action lawsuit, and as named complainants in a Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) complaint against American Airlines in May 2017. (Id. at ¶¶ 63-65.) They also claim that American Airlines' policies and practices related to bidding for work assignments training, and accelerated disciplinary actions have a disparate impact on Plaintiffs and other African...