Knox v. American Airlines, Inc.

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Orde: The court ORDERS that defendant's motion to dismiss be, and is hereby, granted, and plaintiff's claim be, and is hereby, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/3/2016) (mpw)

i

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cqrrRT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS i
FORT WORTH DIVISION

I

KATHY J. KNOXr

l

§
§

Plaintiff/

§
§

vs.
AMERICAN AIRLINES

1

INC.

I

§
§
§

NO. 4:16-CV-835-A

§
§

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendant/ American
Airlines,

Inc.

to dismiss. Plaintiff/ Kathy J. Knox/ has failed

1

to respond to the motion, which is ripe for ruling. The court/
having considered the motion/ the record/ and applicable
authorities/ finds that the motion should be granted.
I.

Plaintiffts Claims
On June 20

1

2016

1

plaintiff filed her original petition in

the 67th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County/ Texas. On
September 8

1

2016 1 defendant filed its notice of removal/

bringing the action before this court.
Plaintiff alleges: She worked as a gate agent for defendant
at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. On occasion/ she
parked her car in terminal parking and later moved it to employee
parking during her lunch break/ which she might take whenever it
was not a busy time. On or about March 1

1

2016

1

someone made an

anonymous call alleging that plaintiff left her work area and was
unavailable to work despite being on the clock. Plaintiff was
terminated without cause and without any prior warning or notice.
Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract. She refers
the court to certain rules of conduct and to an airline passenger
service agreement between her union and defendant.
II.
Grounds of the Motion
Defendant says that plaintiff's claim should be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is preempted
by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.

§

151. In the alternative,

defendant says that plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which
relief can be based.
III.
Applicable Legal Principles
When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, the court construes the allegations of the
complaint favorably to the pleader.
Inc., 517 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1975).

Spector v. L Q Motor Inns,
However, the court is not

limited to a consideration of the allegations of the complaint in
deciding whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.
v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413

(5th Cir. 1981).

Williamson

The court may

consider conflicting evidence and decide for itself the factual

2

issues that determine jurisdiction.

Id.

Because of the limited

nature of federal court jurisdiction, there is a presumption
against its existence.

See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,

437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978); McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance
Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).

A party who seeks to invoke

federal court jurisdiction has the burden to demonstrate that
subject matter jurisdiction exists.

McNutt, 298 U.S. at 178;

Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97

(1921).

IV.
Analysis
Whether this court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim
depends on whether the dispute is a "major" or "minor" dispute
under the Railway Labor Act. A dispute is "minor" if it involves
the interpretation or application of a collectively-bargained
agreement. Elgin, J. & E. Ry. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 722-24
(1945) . Of particular note here is that a dispute is "minor" if
it implicates practices, procedures, implied authority, or codes
of conduct that are part of the working relationship between the
parties. Fry v. Airline Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 88 F.3d 831, 836
(loth Cir. 1996). Courts do not have jurisdiction over minor

disputes; rather, boards of adjustment have mandatory, exclusive,
and comprehensive jurisdiction over such matters. Bhd. of
Locomotive Eng'rs v. Louisville & N.R.R., 373 U.S. 33, 36-38

3

(1963). Based on the facts alleged by plaintiff-that she did not
violate any of defendant's rules in its code of conduct and that
her actions were authorized by the terms of the collective
bargaining agreement--this is a "minor" dispute over which the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Wyatt v. United
Airlines, Inc.

1

No. 7:13-CV-282-F

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 13
Litiq.

1

Sept. 26

1

2014 WL 3955078

1

at *3

2014); In re Allied Pilots Assoc. Class Action

No. 3:99-CV-0480-P
1

1

1

2000 WL 1405235

1

at *4

(N.D. Tex.

2000).

v.
Order
The court ORDERS that defendant's motion to dismiss be, and
is hereby, granted, and plaintiff's claim be, and is hereby,
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
SIGNED October 3, 2016.

4