Ballew v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
668 F.3d 777
5th Cir.2012Background
- Retirees are former Continental Airlines pilots who sued under ERISA §502(a)(1)(B) for breach of the pension plan terms.
- District court dismissed, holding the Railway Labor Act (RLA) applies and provides exclusive resolution for their contract-interpretation claim.
- Retirees appealed, contending the RLA does not apply to former employees and that ERISA remedies are available under their CBA.
- The Retirement Plan is integrated into the CBA, and the Retirement Board reviews adverse benefit determinations under the RLA framework.
- The Retirement Board issued a unanimous decision in 2009 denying Retirees’ interpretation; Retirees filed suit in May 2010 seeking ERISA relief; district court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
- The court affirmed dismissal, holding that Retirees fall within the RLA framework and cannot obtain ERISA-based judicial review of Retirement Board determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Retirees are employees under the RLA | Retirees argue they are not covered as retirees | Continental argues they remain within the RLA employee scope | RLA applies to retirees despite former status |
| Whether judicial review of Retirement Board determinations is available outside the RLA framework | Parties may pursue ERISA review after RLA review under the CBA | RLA review is exclusive; ERISA cannot override | No judicial review outside RLA; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonin v. American Airlines, 621 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1980) (pension claims not subject to CBA interpretation; ERISA relief possible when plan independent from CBA)
- Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (Supreme Court 1994) (Congressional intent to keep minor disputes within the arbitration framework)
- CareFlite v. Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, 612 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2010) (limits of arbitration when disputes are not created by a CBA; ERISA not a substitute for RLA)
- Day, Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v., 360 U.S. 548 (Supreme Court 1959) (RLA applies to retirees seeking compensation for work performed while active)
- Mitchell v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 481 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes major vs minor disputes under the RLA)
- Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 863 F.2d 87 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (resolve arbitrability in favor of coverage under the RLA)
- Sheehan, Union Pacific R.R. Co. v., 439 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court 1978) (limits of judicial review of System Board decisions)