Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 720 F.3d 60

Skycaps—porters at airports—brought putative class actions against US Airways and United Airlines.
Airlines imposed $2 per bag curbside baggage-handling fees not paid to skycaps; tips declined as compensation.
Plaintiffs claimed unjust enrichment and tortious interference based on how fees were imposed and perceived by passengers.
District court dismissed these state-law claims as preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA).
Court analyzes whether common-law claims fall within ADA § 41713(b)(1) as related to price, route, or service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do common-law unjust enrichment and tortious interference claims relate to an air carrier's price/service and thus preempted by the ADA?	Common law is not a 'law, regulation, or provision' with force of law; cannot be preempted.	ADA preempts any state-law claim related to airline price, route, or service, including common law.	Yes; ADA preempts these common-law claims as related to price/service.

Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (preemption scope and relatedness standards for ADA)
Wolens, American Airlines, Inc. v., 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (principled discussion of 'having the force and effect of law' and private contracts)
DiFiore v. American Airlines, Inc., 646 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2011) (preemption of state Tips Act under ADA; linkage to price/service)
Buck v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 476 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007) (ADA preemption of various common-law claims)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (textual interpretation of preemption scope)
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) (preemption and standard of review for implied/common-law preemption)
Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002) (saving clause and interpretation of 'having the force and effect of law')
American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, S. Ct. (2013) (FAAA preemption analogy; functional approach to preemption)