Aityahia v. Envoy Air Incorporated
2:24-cv-02126
D. Ariz.Jun 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Aziz Aityahia, age 57 and of Algerian national origin, applied for a pilot position with Envoy Air and received a conditional offer, which was later rescinded.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge against Envoy for age discrimination after the offer was withdrawn; while this was pending, he reapplied and was again rejected, prompting a second EEOC charge alleging age, national origin discrimination, and retaliation.
- The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter naming only Envoy Air as the respondent, not including American Airlines or its parent company.
- Plaintiff, pro se, then sued both Envoy Air and American Airlines under Title VII and the ADEA, seeking reinstatement and damages.
- American Airlines moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and insufficient pleading linking it to the alleged discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion: Whether administrative remedies were exhausted as to American Airlines | Envoy and American are operationally inseparable; naming Envoy sufficed | Only Envoy named in EEOC charges; American uninvolved | Not exhausted as to American; no exception applies |
| Sufficiency of Pleading: Whether the complaint alleges facts showing liability by American | Envoy and American operate as one entity; new facts show interconnection | Plaintiff failed to allege any facts implicating American | Complaint lacks factual allegations against American |
| Proper Defendant: Whether American is a correct party under Title VII/ADEA | Envoy acted as agent for American; American should be liable | American is not Envoy’s parent, exerts no employment control | American is not a proper party based on pleaded facts |
| Leave to Amend: Whether leave should be granted despite deficiencies | Court should allow amendment; deficiencies could be cured | Amendment futile due to untimely EEOC charges and no control | Leave to amend granted to cure deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) and plausibility pleading)
- Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 (incorporation by reference doctrine for documents)
- Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451 (naming defendants in EEOC charge is required; limited exceptions)
- Morgan v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 884 F.2d 1211 (integrated enterprise doctrine for employer liability)
- Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 291 F.3d 632 (liberality of construing EEOC charges and its limits)
- Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally)