AMERISTAR AIRWAYS, INC. v. US Dept. of Labor
650 F.3d 562
5th Cir.2011Background
- Clemmons, former director of operations for Ameristar Airways, alleged AIR21 retaliation after reporting FAA safety issues.
- Board found AIR21 violation and awarded back pay; Fifth Circuit affirmed liability but remanded for back-pay amount.
- Key events: Dec 17 protected activity (safety concerns); Jan 7 FAA meeting; Jan 20 termination; Palpable pattern of post hoc rationalizations offered by Ameristar.
- Ameristar asserted six non-retaliatory reasons for termination, later argued pretext due to shifting explanations.
- Insulting email by Clemmons became a focal point when discovered March 28, 2003; after-acquired evidence issue later raised.
- Remand ordered to address whether back pay should be limited to the period before discovery of the insubordinate email and adjust accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clemmons proved a prima facie AIR21 retaliation case | Clemmons's protected activity followed by discharge supports prima facie case. | Discharge could be based on legitimate performance/operational concerns. | Yes; prima facie case shown. |
| Whether Ameristar's proffered reasons were pretextual | Evidence shows shifting, inconsistent explanations; pretext established. | Reasons were legitimate and tied to performance/operational concerns. | Yes; pretext supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether AIR21's burden-shifting framework was properly applied | McDonnell Douglas framework supports finding liability given pretext. | Defenses require careful separation of legitimate grounds from retaliation. | Framework applied correctly; liability found based on pretext. |
| Whether Ameristar satisfied the affirmative defense | Pretext undermines the defense; employer would not have acted for legitimate reasons alone. | Clear and convincing evidence would show action would occur absent protected activity. | Not met; substantial evidence supports Board rejection of the defense. |
| What is the correct back-pay period under after-acquired evidence rules | Back pay should run until the unlawful discharge date to date of discovery is irrelevant. | Back pay should be limited to period before discovery of new information if it would have led to termination for legitimate reasons. | Remand to determine proper back-pay period under after-acquired evidence rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation cases)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court 1981) (prima facie proof and shifting burden of production)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext may establish liability after prima facie case and falsified reasons)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court 1993) (ultimate burden remains with plaintiff after pretext shown)
- Allen v. Admin. Rev. Bd., 514 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2008) (administrative review framework and substantial evidence standard)
- Marathon LeTourneau Co. v. NLRB, 699 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1983) (shifting explanations can indicate pretext)
- Vieques Air Link, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 437 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2006) (pretext and shifting explanations support liability findings)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ'g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (Supreme Court 1995) (after-acquired evidence does not bar back pay unless severity shown)
- Evans v. City of Houston, 246 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2001) (temporal proximity plus other evidence supports retaliation inference)