Federal Airline Deregulation Act does not Pre-empt Aircraft Mechanic's Retaliation Claim

A federal court in Illinois has held that an aircraft mechanic's state law retaliation claim is not pre-empted by the whistleblower protection provision (WPP) of the Federal Airline Deregulation Act (FADA). See Meyer v. United Airlines (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2009). In Meyer, the plaintiff claimed he was discharged in retaliation for his complaints to supervisors that the airline's maintenance procedures violated FAA safety regulations. The airline moved to dismiss the plaintiff's state law retaliation claim on the ground that the FADA's WPP pre-empts the claim.

The court rejected the airline's motion. The court noted that the WPP pre-empts a state retaliatory discharge claim only when the claim relates to airline prices, routes or services. According the court, for Meyer's employment claim to have an impact on the airline's services, he would need to assert that the result of his case would have more than a tenuous impact on the airline.

The court found that even if Meyer prevailed on his retaliation claim, the results – such as an award of back pay, wages, and damages – would have only a minimal impact on the airline. Similarly a determination that Meyer was subjected to retaliation would not automatically require the airline to change its practices in any manner regarding the amount of time that a particular employee spends on a particular aircraft. According to the court, without injunctive relief being sought (which Meyer did not seek here) the case would have no impact on the airline's practices because no finding would be made regarding the way in which an aircraft should be maintained and serviced. Thus, the court held, "the result that he is seeking, re-employment or damages for his discharge, do not directly relate to the manner in which the airline services its planes nor would that result have an impact on the airline other than in a remote and peripheral way."

Because of this tenuous connection, the court held that the FADA does not pre-empt Meyer's state common law retaliatory discharge claim. The court's decision merely permits Meyer to continue with his state law claim; it is not a determination on the merits of his case.