Jones v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International
395 U.S. App. D.C. 279
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Jones challenged FTEPA, which raises the mandatory pilot retirement age from 60 to 65, and alleged NJLAD violations by Continental and ALPA for failing to place him to benefit from the higher age limit; FTEPA also includes a nonretroactivity clause with a limited exception for pilots who were already over 60 and serving as a
- a required flight deck crew member
- at enactment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FTEPA preempt NJLAD age-discrimination claims? | Jones contends FTEPA constitutional or non-preemptive against NJLAD. | Continental/ALPA argue FTEPA preempts NJLAD claims. | Jones's concession shows preemption; district court's preemption ruling affirmed. |
| May the court consider a new NJLAD failure-to-demote theory not presented below? | Jones argues the theory should be reached on appeal. | Theory was not raised below; not reviewable. | Court declines to reach new theory; does not consider it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. FAA, 550 F.3d 1174 (D.C.Cir. 2008) (moots petitions challenging FAA's Age 60 Rule under FTEPA)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976) (federal appellate court should not consider issues not passed upon below)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (pleading standard liberal but requires some basis for claims)
- Hall v. Ford, 856 F.2d 255 (D.C.Cir. 1988) (standard for considering new legal theories on appeal)
- Prime Time Int'l Co. v. Vilsack, 599 F.3d 678 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (appellate court review limits on legal theories)
- Jones v. Horne, 634 F.3d 588 (D.C.Cir. 2011) (reaffirmation of pleading and theory-presentation requirements)
- Ginyard v. United States, 444 F.3d 648 (D.C.Cir. 2006) (binding concessions on questions of law)