MN Airlines, Inc. v. Levander
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED 9 ; and 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED 13 . LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 08/27/2015. (LLM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MN Airlines, Inc., d/b/a
Sun Country Airlines,
No. 15-cv-2454 (PAM/BRT)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Jenell Levander,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s
cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. For the reasons that follow, the Motion to
Dismiss is denied and the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.
BACKGROUND
Defendant Jenell Levander was a flight attendant for Defendant MN Airlines d/b/a
Sun Country Airlines from 2011 until 2015. (Compl. ¶ 9.) She was fired in January 2015
after she failed a random drug test. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) She thereafter threatened to sue Sun
Country, contending that her termination violated the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing
in the Workplace Act (MDATWA). (Id. ¶ 4.) The MDATWA prohibits terminating an
employee the first time they fail a drug test. Minn. Stat. § 181.953, subd. 10(b). (Id. ¶ 16.)
Sun Country brought this case seeking a declaration that that the MDATWA as applied to
airline personnel is preempted by federal law and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulations, which comprehensively regulate drug testing by airlines. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.)
After Sun Country filed this action, Levander filed a state-court lawsuit for damages
for Sun Country’s alleged violations of the MDATWA. The parties have agreed to stay the
state case pending the outcome of the federal litigation
DISCUSSION
Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, a federal law may preempt a state statute
in several ways. English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78 (1990). Two types of federal
preemption are relevant here: conflict preemption and field preemption. Conflict preemption
requires the preemption of a state’s law “to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal
law.” Id. at 79. Thus, a state law is preempted “where it is impossible for a private party to
comply with both state and federal requirements.” Id. Field preemption exists when a state
law “regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy
exclusively.” Id. Levander urges the Court to apply conflict preemption principles and to
find that the specific state requirement at issue does not conflict with the requirements of
federal law. Sun Country, on the other hand, contends that federal law occupies the field
with regard to aviation personnel and safety issues such as drug testing, so that the
application of Minnesota law to the drug testing of aviation personnel is preempted. In the
alternative, Sun Country asks the Court to find that the specific Minnesota statute at issue is
preempted because it conflicts with federal law.
2
Because Levander was a flight attendant, she was classified as “aviation personnel
performing safety-sensitive functions” under FAA regulations. 14 C.F.R. § 120.121(a). As
such, she was subject to the drug-testing requirements set forth in those regulations and in
the related Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (OTETA), 49 U.S.C.
§ 45101 et seq. The OTETA requires random drug and alcohol testing for personnel
performing safety-sensitive functions. 49 U.S.C. § 45102(a). The regulations set forth a
comprehensive scheme governing such testing, including permitted and required
consequences for positive drug tests. For example, should a person performing safetysensitive functions use drugs or alcohol during the performance of their duties, that employee
is permanently prohibited from working in a safety-sensitive position for any airline. 49
U.S.C. § 45103(c)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 120.111(e)(2).
Minnesota law also purports to regulate an employer’s permissible course of conduct
after one of its employees has a positive drug test. The MDATWA does not permit
employers in Minnesota to discharge an employee for his or her first positive test result,
unless the employee has first been given the opportunity to participate in a rehabilitation
program and has refused to participate or failed to successfully complete the program. Minn.
Stat. § 181.953, subd. 10(b).
Levander emphasizes that neither the FAA nor OTETA require airlines to terminate
personnel in safety-sensitive positions after an initial positive drug test, and suggests that the
regulations’ lack of prohibition should be taken as acquiescence to the scheme the
MDATWA mandates: a first positive drug test cannot be the basis for termination. But
3
while the regulations do not prohibit a zero-tolerance policy like Sun Country’s, they
certainly permit airlines to maintain such policies. Indeed, the FAA’s sample drug-testing
policy for airlines provides that an employee who tests positive for drugs “will be
terminated.”
See faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/drug_
alcohol/forms/drug_policies.
But whether or not Levander is correct that it is possible for an airline to comply both
with OTETA and MDATWA, the regulations are clear that the FAA has preempted the field
of drug testing of airline personnel. The regulations promulgated under OTETA “preempt[]
any State or local law, rule, regulation, order, or standard covering the subject matter” of
those regulations, “including, but not limited to, drug testing of aviation personnel
performing safety-sensitive functions.” 14 C.F.R. § 120.121(a) (emphasis added). Rarely
is the intent of a law so clear: states may not regulate the drug testing of aviation personnel
performing safety-sensitive functions. The MDATWA purports to do just that, by precluding
airlines from terminating the employment of such personnel for an initial positive drug test.
As such, it is preempted.
4
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 9) is DENIED; and
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 13) is
GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 27, 2015
s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?