Mitchell v. US Airways, Inc.

BEN MITCHELL, DONALD CHANDLER, WILMER PRESTON, RICARDO ENGERMAN,

DENNIS CASHMAN, RAJI LAHCEN, DONALD WILLOUGHBY, ANTHONY SMITH,

STEPHEN TOUMA, JOSEPH MATHIEU, ISAAC WILLIAMS, KEVIN DAVIS, LEE

HARDIN, STEVEN McCOY, MICHAEL KALINOWSKI, GERALD PEET, Plaintiffs,

v.US AIRWAYS, INC., PRIME FLIGHT AVIATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

JOSEPH BROWN, VINCENT McLAREN, PHILIP FIELDS, CARLOS BORGES

CARREIRO, PATRICIA SHEA-SCANLON, DHARAM SAIHGAL, ELVIS BUTCHER,

LARRY HOLT, SCOTT GORDON, MICHAEL RASHARD, LORENZO WILEY, JAMES

BROWN, GERARDO AGUIRRE, KEVIN REAVES, MICHAEL KALINOWSKI, Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-10629-WGY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-10689-WGY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

May 1, 2012

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

YOUNG, D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the course of the last century, airlines have been subject to varying levels of oversight by different regulatory bodies. The first significant national legislation regarding commercial aviation was the Air Commerce Act of 1926, vesting regulatory authority in the Secretary of Commerce to ensure air safety, and granting the President, the Secretary of War, and the states the authority to reserve airspace for certain uses. Pub. L. No. 69-254, 44 Stat. 568 (1926) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.).

In 1938, recognizing that the division of responsibility and authority over air safety and navigation "plague[d]" both civil and military air operations, H.R. Rep. No. 85-2360, at 2 (1958), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3741, 3743, Congress enacted the Civil Aeronautics Act, establishing a single administrative aviation agency, the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Pub. L. No. 75-706, 52 Stat. 973 (1938) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.). Congress included in the Act a general remedies saving clause, providing that the legislation did not alter common law or statutory remedies then in existence. Id. § 1106, 52 Stat. at 1027.

Authority over the airspace was again divided when, a few years later, the Civil Aeronautics Authority was divided into two segments, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil AeronauticsAdministration, the latter operating under the control of the Secretary of Commerce. H.R. Rep. No. 85-2360, at 3. The executive branch further diluted authority in 1946 by creating the Air Coordinating Committee to act on certain matters. Id.

In an effort to centralize authority, Congress enacted the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, establishing the Federal Aviation Agency to foster civil aviation, promulgate regulations for the safety and efficiency of civil and military air operations, and develop a common system of air traffic control and navigation. Pub. L. No. 85-726, § 103, 72 Stat. 731, 740 (1958) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.). Congress retained the Civil Aeronautics Board to oversee certain areas of the airline industry, including economic regulation. Id. §§ 204, 401-416, 72 Stat. at 743, 754-71. Congress also preserved the saving clause from earlier legislation. Id. § 1106.

Over the next two decades, the airlines were subject to extensive economic regulation which Congress eventually deemed "highly anticompetitive." H.R. Rep. No. 95-1211, at 2 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3737, 3738. Congress thus enacted the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 in order to phase out the onerous economic restrictions constraining the airlines, encourage competition, and ultimately abolish the Civil Aeronautics Board. Pub. L. No. 95-504, 92 Stat. 1705 (1978) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C.). Toprevent the states from imposing their own regulations on the airlines, Congress included a preemption clause forbidding the states from regulating the airlines' rates, routes, or services. Id. § 4(a), 92 Stat. at 1707-08 (codified at 49 U.S.C.App. § 1305(a)(1)). When Congress later recodified Title 49, it relocated the preemptive language of the Airline Deregulation Act to 49 U.S.C. § 41713, and rephrased the provision slightly to reflect stylistic changes. Pub. L. No. 103-272, 108 Stat. 745 (1994).

In relevant part, the final preemptive language reads: "a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier . . . ." 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1). It is the interpretation of this preemptive language that lies at the heart of these two putative class actions: Mitchell v. US Airways, Inc. and Brown v. United Air Lines, Inc.

A. Background¹

1. Mitchell v. US Airways, Inc.

Mitchell v. US Airways, Inc. is a putative class action brought on behalf of skycaps working at airports throughout the United States ("Mitchell Skycaps") for US Airways, Inc. ("US Airways"). The Mitchell Skycaps assert seven counts: (1) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; (2) tortious interference with the implied contractual or advantageous relationship between the Mitchell Skycaps and US Airways's customers; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violation of Massachusetts General Law, chapter 149, section 152A (the "Massachusetts Tip Law"); (5) tortious interference with the contractual or advantageous relationship between the Mitchell Skycaps and the contractor companies who employed them; (6) termination in violation of public policy; and (7) retaliation in violation of Massachusetts General Law, chapter 149, section 148A. US Airways has submitted three motions presently before the Court: (1) a motion to dismiss Counts Two through Seven of the Fourth Amended Complaint on the theory that all of the claims are preempted by Section 105 of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (the "Airline Deregulation Act"), and on the additional theory that the Mitchell Skycaps lack standing as to Counts Five through Seven; (2) a motion for summary judgment on Count One of the Fourth Amended Complaint on the theory that no violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act occurred; and (3) a motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Fourth Amended Complaint onthe theory that the claims are preempted by the Railway Labor Act.

This memorandum addresses US Airways's motion to dismiss on the ground of preemption by the Airline Deregulation Act only as to Counts Two, Three, Four, and Seven, and US Airways's motion for summary judgment on Count One. The Court does not rule in this memorandum on US Airways' remaining motions regarding Counts Five and Six.

a. Initial Proceedings

The Mitchell Skycaps commenced this action against US Airways and Prime Flight Aviation Services, Inc. ("Prime Flight") on April 11, 2008. Compl., ECF No. 1. On May 15, 2008, the Mitchell Skycaps amended their complaint as of right, dropping Prime Flight as a defendant and replacing the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage claim in Count One with a Massachusetts Tip Law claim. Am. Compl., ECF No. 4. On June 30, 2008, the Mitchell Skycaps filed the Second Amended Complaint, with US Airways's assent, which again joined Prime Flight as a defendant and reasserted the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage claim. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 11.

On August 18, 2008, US Airways filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Def. US Airways's Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 22. The Mitchell Skycaps filed a motion again to amend their complaint, proposing twelve additional plaintiffs, some of whomwere employed by Prime Flight and others of whom were employed by G2 Secure Staff, LLC ("G2"). Pls.' Mot. Leave File Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 24. In September 2008, US Airways withdrew its motion to dismiss, Def. US Airways's Assented-to Mot. Withdraw Mot. Dismiss Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 38, and the Mitchell Skycaps filed their assented-to Third Amended Complaint on September 23, 2008, Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 33. Prime Flight filed its answer on October 14, 2008. Answer Prime Flight Aviation Services Pls.' Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 46. On October 30, 2009, the Mitchell Skycaps again filed a motion to amend their complaint, Pls.' Mot. Leave File Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 112, which motion was granted by the court on September 8, 2010, Electronic Order, Sept. 8, 2010. The Mitchell Skycaps filed their Fourth Amended Complaint ("Mitchell Complaint"), the operative pleading, on June 24, 2011, making changes to reflect a settlement with Prime Flight and adding an additional claim for tortious interference. Fourth Am. Compl. ("Mitchell Compl."), ECF No. 137.

b. Partial Motion to Dismiss Based on Preemption by the Airline Deregulation Act

On October 10, 2008, US Airways filed a partial motion to dismiss the Mitchell Skycaps' Third Amended Complaint, arguing that Counts Two, Three, Four, Seven and Eight are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, and that the Mitchell Skycaps' retaliation and wrongful termination claims, Counts Two and Threeof the Third Amended Complaint, also fail as matter of law. Def. US Airways's Partial Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 41; Def. US Airways's Mem. Law Supp. Partial Mot. Dismiss Pls.' Third Am. Compl. 4, ECF No. 42. The Mitchell Skycaps opposed the motion, Pls.' Opp'n Def. US Airways's Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 50, and US Airways filed a reply, Def. US Airways's Reply Mem. Further Supp. Partial Mot. Dismiss Pls.' Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 59. The court granted the motion on September 22, 2009, dismissing Counts Two, Three, Four, Seven and Eight. Electronic Order, Sept. 22, 2009. The Mitchell Skycaps filed a motion for reconsideration on October 30, 2009, Pls.' Mot. Recons. Court's Decision Granting Def. US Airways's Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 113, US Airways opposed the motion, Opp'n Pls.' Mot. Recons. Court's Decision Granting US Airways's Partial Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 116, the Mitchell Skycaps filed a reply, Pls.' Reply Br. Supp. (1) Mot. Recons. Court's Decision Granting Def. US Airways's Mot. Dismiss (2) Mot. Leave File Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 126,...