870 F.3d 812
8th Cir.2017Background
- John Watson, a former Air Methods flight paramedic, alleges he reported multiple post hoc air-safety violations (e.g., pilot cell-phone videos, texting during critical flight phases, attempted takeoff with frost/ice) to his employer and was suspended then terminated.
- Watson sued in Missouri state court for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (whistleblower claim); Air Methods removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Air Methods moved to dismiss, arguing the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) § 41713(b)(1) expressly pre-empts Watson’s state-law wrongful-discharge claim because it relates to an air carrier’s service.
- A district court and an Eighth Circuit panel relied on this circuit’s prior decision in Botz v. Omni Air Int’l and dismissed; the court granted rehearing en banc to revisit Botz.
- The en banc Eighth Circuit analyzed the ADA pre-emption clause, the scope of “service,” the Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP), and cross-circuit authority, and ultimately overruled Botz in relevant part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ADA § 41713(b)(1) expressly pre-empts a state-law wrongful-discharge claim for employer retaliation based on a post hoc report of air-safety violations | Watson: state wrongful-discharge law is not pre-empted because a tort remedy for retaliation does not meaningfully affect an air carrier’s prices, routes, or services | Air Methods: allowing state wrongful-discharge suits will force state courts to interpret federal safety regs and could alter how carriers perform services, so the claim is pre-empted as relating to carrier "service" | The ADA does not expressly pre-empt Watson’s post hoc whistleblower wrongful-discharge claim; Botz is overruled in relevant part |
Key Cases Cited
- Botz v. Omni Air Int’l, 286 F.3d 488 (8th Cir. 2002) (prior Eighth Circuit decision finding ADA pre-emption of certain whistleblower claims)
- Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejected Botz; held post hoc whistleblower claims not expressly pre-empted)
- Gary v. Air Grp., Inc., 397 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2005) (rejected Botz’s extension of ADA pre-emption to post hoc reports)
- Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003) (held post hoc whistleblower claims not expressly pre-empted)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (interpreting ADA pre-emption language covering state laws "related to" rates, routes, or services)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (clarified that pre-emption requires a significant impact on the regulated interests)
- American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (treats certain consumer claims as related to carrier service for pre-emption analysis)