A federal judge declined to allow a group of airline pilots to sue their labor union for failing to adequately represent members who sought to avoid United Airlines’ coronavirus vaccine mandates.
In August, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly dismissed a complaint from James Engstrom and Richard Shaw against United and Air Line Pilots Association International, grounding their allegations of violating the Florida Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The pilots have since sought permission from the court to amend their complaint to address the judge's ruling and try again to press their claims.
According to court records, both pilots are Florida residents and ALPA members. Engstrom flies out of Newark and Shaw from Houston. They say the union responded to United’s 2021 COVID vaccination mandate by considering it a “job qualification” the airline could unilaterally adopt without violating the collective bargaining contract.
They further allege ALPA leadership discouraged members from filing grievances and actively discouraged pilots from challenging the policy, including through “incorrect legal advice concerning the religious accommodation process, literally telling their members that in order to claim a proper religious accommodation they must be an adherent of a recognized religion with an established opposition to the vaccination process.”
Both pilots obtained accommodations — Engstrom on religious grounds and Shaw for medial and religious purposes — which resulted in United placing them on unpaid, indefinite leave. They filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Florida Commission on Human Relations, then sued in federal court in Florida. United successfully had the suit transferred to Chicago.
The pilots insisted they had a right to sue under Florida law as residents of that state, but Kennelly agreed with United that their allegations are “insufficient to show that the Florida legislature intended these protections to follow them when engaging in out-of-state employment activities.”
Kennelly further rejected the pilots’ attempt to invoke legal precedent a Florida federal court and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, noting neither court’s decisions bind his rulings, and also that both cases involved plaintiffs who work in Florida. He therefore dismissed all state civil rights claims against United.
Regarding disability claims, the union argued the Florida and federal claims fall on the merits, regardless of jurisdiction, because the pilots didn’t plausible allege a “disability” beyond Shaw’s vague reference to “medical concerns” about the vaccine or Engstrom’s claimed entitlement to ADA accommodations “due to his medical condition.”
Kennelly rejected those positions, and also the pilots’ allegation the airline and union “perceived them as disabled based on their lack of vaccination,” noting he and other judges have repeatedly dismissed ADA complaints based on vaccination status.
“The plaintiffs have not identified any present and substantially limiting physical or mental impairment (aside from being unvaccinated, which is not sufficient) they had or were regarded by ALPA as having,” Kennelly wrote. “In addition, as far as the court can discern, the complaint does not even plausibly allege that ALPA had any awareness regarding the reasons for the plaintiffs’ unvaccinated status.”
The pilots also failed to adequately claim retaliation under the ADA, Kennelly said, because the complaint shows no link between union action and any protected activity. Although he acknowledged the possibility of a request for a vaccine accommodation for medical reasons to fall under ADA protections, Kennelly reiterated the complaint doesn’t clarify what the workers told their union or what adverse actions the union executed in response to their requests or EEOC complaint.
As to the Title VII claims, Kennelly said, “the Seventh Circuit has made clear that a union is not vicariously liable for discrimination by a union member’s employer.” He said the complaint has no indication of ALPA’s actions being rooted in “animus towards Christianity or religion,” and while he disagreed with the union’s position the pilots had to show an affirmative duty to act on their behalf, he found the pilots didn’t meet the lower bar of showing “the union based its decision to act or to do nothing based on a protected characteristic such as an employee's race or religion.”
Rather, the complaint pointed to motivating factors like the union supporting United in qualifying and maintaining eligibility for federal relief funds. Kennelly also said failure to accommodate complains against the union failed because the pilots never showed where they asked ALPA for religious accommodations and the laws they invoked don’t support vicarious liability.
Kennelly also rejected claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. He gave the pilots an Aug. 26 deadline for pursing another amendment to their complaint and set a Sept. 5 status hearing.
Nathan McCoy, of Wilson McCoy, of Maitland, Fla., represents the pilots. He did not respond to a request for comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association also did not comment.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion asking the judge permission to amend their complaint to address the shortcomings identified by the judge in his ruling. That motion has been opposed by defendants and the judge had not yet ruled, as of Sept. 18.