Day v. Air Methods Corporation
5:17-cv-00183
E.D. Ky.Oct 23, 2017Background
- Eight former Air Methods Corporation (AMC) employees sued on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees alleging violations of the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act (KWHA), other state wage laws, unjust enrichment, and retaliation; case removed under CAFA.
- Plaintiffs allege AMC failed to pay overtime for hours over 40 per week and terminated employees who complained about wage issues.
- AMC moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), and raised preemption and statute-of-limitations defenses.
- Court applied the Sixth Circuit personal-jurisdiction prima facie standard and Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Court denied AMC’s personal-jurisdiction challenge as to the named plaintiffs, allowed Kentucky class actions under CR 23 based on McCann (Ky. Sup. Ct.), and rejected Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preemption of the wage, unjust enrichment, and retaliation claims.
- Applying Kentucky’s five-year statute of limitations, the Court dismissed with prejudice three plaintiffs whose employment ended more than five years before the complaint and limited other plaintiffs’ claims to overtime after March 22, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction | Named plaintiffs assert AMC’s contacts with Kentucky suffice | AMC contends jurisdiction improper for representative claims outside KY | Denied as to named plaintiffs; court reviews jurisdiction based on named parties |
| Availability of class action under KWHA | KWHA claim may proceed as class action under CR 23 | KRS § 337.385(2) purportedly bars class actions | Denied — Kentucky Supreme Court in McCann allows CR 23 class actions under KRS §337.385 |
| ADA preemption of state wage/unjust enrichment/retaliation claims | State laws regulate employment relationship; not related to airline rates/routes/services | Wage and related claims affect costs, services, and rates and thus are preempted | Denied — court finds connection too tenuous/remote to trigger ADA preemption |
| Statute of limitations and equitable tolling | Plaintiffs claim handbook misrepresentations (RLA/FLSA) tolled limitations | AMC argues plaintiffs knew or should have known unpaid overtime at each pay period | Court applied 5-year limitations; dismissed three plaintiffs whose claims were time-barred and limited others to claims after March 22, 2012; handbook statements insufficient to equitably toll |
Key Cases Cited
- Conn v. Zakharov, 667 F.3d 705 (6th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction prima facie)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must plead more than speculative claims)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (specific jurisdiction requires affiliation between forum and underlying controversy)
- Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (state-law claims that ‘‘relate to’’ airline rates, routes, or services are preempted)
- Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (preemption requires a significant impact on carrier rates, routes, or services)
- Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399 (Ky.) (analysis of field preemption by state statute)