DeOliveira v. United Airlines
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/17/16. (cm )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-3148 (JLL)
LINARES, District Judge
The pro se plaintiff who was employed by the defendant airline, alleges in a
handwritten complaint that: (1) he was absent from work on several occasions due to a
back injury that he suffered on the job; (2) his personal doctor submitted notes to the
defendant that stated that he was unable to work; (3) the defendant concluded that those
absences were unjustified when, among other things, the defendant’s examining doctor
concluded that the plaintiff was able to perform his duties; and (4) the defendant
wrongfully terminated his employment. (See dkt. 1; dkt. 14.)1 The plaintiff alleges that
the defendant tenninated his employment: (1) in violation of the Americans With
Disabilities Act (hereinafier, “ADA claim”); and (2) in a manner that breached the terms
The parties have not advised the Court about the kind ofjob that the plaintiff held in his
employment with the defendant.
of the collective bargaining agreement between the union representing the defendant’s
employees and the defendant (hereinafter, “CBA claim”). (See dkt. 1 at
The defendant now moves to dismiss the CBA claim as being preempted by the
Railway Labor Act, and argues that the CBA claim can only be addressed through a
mandatory arbitration process. (See dkt. 12-1 at 7; see generally dkt. 12; dkt. 12-1; dkt.
12-2; dkt. 12-3; dkt. 14.) The plaintiff opposes the motion, and argues that: (1) he was
fired after working 16 hours to 18 hours a day for 8 years; (2) he did not get enough rest
because of the mandatory work schedule; and (3) the defendant’s doctor incorrectly
found that he was fit to work after he suffered an allegedly permanent back injury. (See
dkt. 14-1 at 2.)
The Court presumes that the parties are familiar with the factual context and the
procedural history of the action. The Court will resolve the motion upon a review of the
papers and without oral argument. See L.Civ.R. 78.1(b). For the following reasons, the
Court will: (1) grant the motion; and (2) dismiss the CBA claim.3
The Court, in addressing the motion: (1) construed the CBA claim liberally; and
(2) accepted all of the pro se plaintiffs factual allegations as true, construed the CBA
This Court will refer to the documents by the docket entry numbers and the page
numbers imposed by the Electronic Case Filing System.
The defendant does not address the ADA claim in this motion. The Court notes that the
plaintiff alleges that he has received a notice of the right to sue from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. (See dkt. 1 at 6.)
claim in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and considered whether the plaintiff may
be entitled to relief in federal court under any reasonable reading of the CBA claim.
Kissell v. Dep’t of Corrs., 634 Fed.Appx. 876, 878—79 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Ashcroft v.
Igbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007);
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007); and Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d
224 (3d Cir. 200$)).
The airline-employee plaintiff is bringing a CBA claim against the airlineemployer defendant that would require a district court to interpret, to apply, or to enforce
an existing labor agreement. The plaintiffs CBA claim
that the airline employer
breached the collective bargaining agreement by tenninating him without cause
presents a “paradigmatic example” of a claim that is preempted by the Railway Labor
Act. Kennedy v. Am. Airlines Inc., No. 15-8058, 2016 WL 3921149, at *5 (D.N.J. July
20, 2016) (granting an airline employer’s motion to dismiss an employee’s claim that the
airline breached the relevant union contract by terminating his employment without
As a result, the plaintiffs CBA claim is preempted by the Railway Labor Act.
181 (extending the provisions of 45 U.S.C.
151 etçq. to air carriers); see
also Nachtsheim v. Cont’l Airlines, 111 Fed.Appx. 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (1994)). A district court simply does not
have subject matter jurisdiction over this kind of claim, and the plaintiff must seek relief
through the arbitration process. See Sierra v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., No. 12-4368, 2013
WL 1222797, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2013) (granting an airline employer’s motion to
dismiss an employee’s claim for being preempted by the Railway Labor Act because “the
gravamen of the complaint is a wrongful discharge”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will: (1) grant the motion; and (2) dismiss the
CBA claim. The Court notes that the ADA claim remains viable. The Court will enter
an appropriate order and judgment.
JQ L. LINARES
ited States District Judge
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?