627 F. App'x 744
11th Cir.2015Background
- Miami-Dade enacted the Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) in 1999 to require higher wages for contractors providing covered services at County facilities and MIA.
- The LWO imposes recordkeeping and reporting duties on covered contractors, including wage, hours, and demographic data, kept for at least three years.
- Amerijet is a certificated air carrier that expanded into cargo handling services at MIA and leased warehouse space in 2010.
- SBD notified Amerijet in 2010 that cargo handling was a covered service and that workers must be paid the living wage; Amerijet questioned applicability to carriers and laid off employees in 2011 after outsourcing.
- Amerijet filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; district court granted summary judgment for the County on federal claims and dismissed related state-law claims.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the LWO as applied to Amerijet is not preempted by the ADA/FAAAA, does not unlawfully burden interstate commerce, and does not violate equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA/FAAAA preemption of LWO as applied | Amerijet: LWO preempts state law under ADA/FAAAA. | County: LWO is general, not targeted, and cargo handling for others is not a covered service under the ADA. | Not preempted by ADA/FAAAA. |
| Dormant Commerce Clause undue burden | Amerijet: LWO protects local incumbents, burdening interstate carriers. | County: LWO does not discriminate or unduly burden commerce; it alters incentives, not competitive market forces. | No dormant Commerce Clause violation. |
| Equal protection – class of one | Amerijet: Centurion treated differently under LWO without justification. | County: insufficient evidence of discriminatory enforcement; Centurion's status unclear. | No genuine issue of material fact; no equal-protection violation. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Amerijet argues district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. | County: district court properly dismissed state claims; no abuse of discretion. | affirmed on federal issues; declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (ADA preemption scope — broad; relates to rates, routes, or services)
- Barbranche, Inc. v. AirTran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003) (definition of 'service' under ADA preemption; bargained-for, airline-consumer focus)
- Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334 (5th Cir. 1995) (service includes airline operations elements; context for preemption)
- Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce v. Milwaukee County, 431 F.3d 277 (7th Cir. 2005) (protectionist motive analysis under dormant Commerce Clause)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (FAAAA preemption; significant impact on carrier services; undue burden analysis)
- Florida Transportation Services v. Miami Dade County, 703 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2012) (dormant Commerce Clause protectionism; entry barriers and protection of incumbents)
- New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995) (indirect effects and ERISA-related preemption analysis relevance)
- California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997) (preemption scope and broad context for wage-related statutes)
- S. Waste Sys., LLC v. City of Delray Beach, Fla., 420 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2005) (level playing field for in-state and out-of-state providers)