Kreb v. Life Flight Network, LLC
3:16-cv-00444
| D. Idaho | Mar 12, 2018Background
- Kreb, hired in Dec. 2013/Feb. 2014 to fly EMS fixed‑wing flights, lived in Washington but was based and performed shifts out of Lewiston, Idaho; he alleges unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, fringe benefits shortfalls, and was fired July 10, 2014 after raising safety concerns.
- Kreb filed suit in Washington state court (May 2016) asserting unpaid wages, wrongful discharge (public policy), and breach of contract; defendants removed and secured transfer to the District of Idaho.
- Jacksons and Jackson Jet Center ("Jackson Defendants") moved for summary judgment, arguing Washington law does not control and, under Idaho law, Kreb’s claims are time‑barred or otherwise precluded.
- Kreb also sought leave to add an FLSA retaliation claim in an amended complaint; defendants opposed as futile, arguing carrier exemptions defeat any FLSA retaliation theory.
- The court applied Washington conflict‑of‑laws rules (Van Dusen) and concluded an actual conflict existed as to wage/overtime remedies and that Idaho has the most significant relationship to the dispute.
- The court granted summary judgment in part (dismissed most wage and contract claims as time‑barred under I.C. § 45‑614; dismissed wrongful termination claim premised on AIR‑21/safety because Kreb elected administrative process), denied summary judgment as to insurance‑benefits wage claim and the wrongful termination claim premised on wage complaints, and granted leave to add an FLSA retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law (Washington v. Idaho) | Kreb argued Washington law should govern or, alternatively, that his claims survive under Idaho law. | Jacksons argued Idaho law applies and bars claims via Idaho statutes of limitation and administrative election. | Court applied Washington's conflict rules and found an actual conflict; Idaho has the most significant relationship, so Idaho law governs. |
| Statute of limitations on wage and contract claims | Kreb seeks "additional" wages (overtime, differentials, per diems, fringe) and contends some items (insurance benefits) may be governed by longer limitations. | Jacksons argued I.C. §45‑614’s six‑month limit bars claims for additional wages and that breach of contract claims seeking the same are likewise barred. | Court held most wage and breach‑of‑contract claims are time‑barred under I.C. §45‑614 (six‑month rule), except wage claims related to insurance benefits (subject to the longer two‑year period). |
| Wrongful discharge based on safety (AIR‑21) | Kreb contended he was fired for raising safety concerns and invoked AIR‑21 and Idaho public‑policy protection. | Jacksons argued Kreb elected the administrative remedy under AIR‑21 and the Secretary of Labor already found no prima facie case; continuing administrative proceedings preclude duplicative court claim. | Court dismissed the wrongful discharge claim premised on safety because Kreb pursued and has not completed the administrative process under AIR‑21 (administrative election bars the court claim). |
| Wrongful discharge based on wage complaints | Kreb alleged he was fired for protesting wage/working condition changes. | Jacksons argued this was judicially/equitably estopped by prior administrative statements and otherwise not a cognizable public‑policy claim. | Court rejected judicial estoppel argument and denied summary judgment as to the wage‑based wrongful discharge claim (Idaho law may protect wage complaints). |
| FLSA retaliation amendment | Kreb sought to add an FLSA anti‑retaliation claim and argued anti‑retaliation protection is available even if substantive overtime entitlement is uncertain. | Jacksons argued futility because carrier or Railway Labor Act exemptions eliminate any FLSA rights and so foreclose a retaliation claim. | Court granted leave to amend; found the futility argument premature and that it could not conclude as a matter of law the FLSA retaliation claim would fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, [citation="477 U.S. 317"] (summary judgment: movant burden and purpose of Rule 56)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, [citation="477 U.S. 242"] (summary judgment: genuine dispute and jury standard)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, [citation="376 U.S. 612"] (transferee court must apply choice‑of‑law applicable in transferor forum)
- Mulcahy v. Farmers Ins. Co., [citation="95 P.3d 313"] (Wash. 2004) (adoption of most significant relationship test for contract conflicts)
- Rice v. Dow Chemical Co., [citation="875 P.2d 1213"] (Wash. 1994) (most significant relationship test for tort conflicts)