Martin Ventress v. Japan Airlines
747 F.3d 716
9th Cir.2014Background
- Ventress sues JAL for retaliation and constructive termination related to safety concerns about Captain Bicknell's medical fitness.
- FAA preemption is the sole issue on appeal; district court held FAA preempts state-law retaliation/constructive-termination claims.
- Court previously held FCN Treaty and ADA did not preempt; now holds FAA preempts to the extent claims require evaluating pilot medical standards.
- FAA and FARs regulate airman qualifications and medical fitness; such regulation is pervasive, occupying the field of aviation safety.
- Ventress argued no domestic conduct or applicability to foreign carriers; district court rejected; issue remains on appeal.
- Court affirms district court, holding state-law claims are preempted and that conduct occurred within or affecting U.S. aviation safety regime; concurrence notes limitations on addressing preemption given the notice of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAA preempts Ventress’s state-law claims. | Ventress | JAL | Yes, preempted by FAA. |
| Whether FAA applies to foreign air carriers in this context. | Ventress | JAL | FAA applicable; preemption remains. |
| Whether Ventress’s appeal allows considering preemption anew given limited notice. | Ventress | JAL | No, limited consideration allowed; majority treats merits under preemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007) (FAA occupies field of aviation safety; pervasiveness of regulations.)
- Martin v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2009) (pervasive regulations preempt state claims; otherwise state standard applies.)
- Valle del Sol, Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) (uniform federal regulation; field preemption principles.)
- City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1963) (uniformity of federal aviation regulation.)
- Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999) (savings clause permits state remedies though federal preemption exists.)
- Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 374 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2004) (criteria for considering appeal arguments in post-judgment context.)