Mitchell v. US Airways, Inc.
858 F. Supp. 2d 137
D. Mass.2012Background
- This is a memorandum and order in Mitchell v. U.S. Airways, Inc. and Brown v. United Air Lines, Inc. addressing ADA preemption and FLSA claims by skycaps.
- Mitchell Skycaps sue US Airways (and Prime Flight) in a putative class action for seven counts including FLSA, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and Massachusetts Tip Law, with procedural history spanning multiple amendments and dismissals.
- Brown Skycaps sue United Air Lines for three counts including the Massachusetts Tip Law, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment, with ADA preemption defenses raised and later renewed.
- The court analyzes whether the ADA preempts state and common-law claims and whether Wolens/DiFiore narrowing applies, and separately considers summary judgment on FLSA claims for Mitchell G2 Skycaps.
- Parties settled Prime Flight-related Skycaps claims; remaining live issues concern Mitchell Skycaps against US Airways and Brown Skycaps against United Air Lines, and the applicability of ADA preemption to their claims.
- The court grants in part and denies in part US Airways’ and United Air Lines’ motions, and schedules remaining dispositive motions for Mitchell and Brown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA preempts state-law claims in Mitchell. | Mitchell argues common-law claims are not preempted. | US Airways contends the claims relate to airline prices/routes/services and are preempted. | Counts Two, Three, and Four preempted; Count Seven withdrawn. |
| Whether common-law unjust enrichment/tortious interference are preempted under ADA. | Skycaps contend some common-law claims fall outside ADA preemption. | ADA preempts claims that relate to airline prices, routes, or services. | Common-law claims tied to tips/price structure preempted; Wolens exception not applicable. |
| Whether Wolens exception permits unjust enrichment claims after preemption. | Skycaps rely on Wolens to permit breach-of-contract-like relief. | Unjust enrichment is not a breach of contract and not saved by Wolens. | Wolens exception does not save unjust enrichment claims. |
| Whether Mitchell G2 Skycaps’ FLSA claims survive summary judgment. | G2 Skycaps contend tip-credit issues keep claims alive; testimony supports mispayment. | US Airways bears burden to prove proper tip credit and notice; evidence insufficient. | Summary judgment denied for Hardin and McCoy; granted for Davis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (preemption narrowly applies to positive enactments; not common law)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (U.S. Supreme Court 1995) (saving clause interpreted to preserve contract-based remedies; Wolens exception limits scope)
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (saving clause gives weight to common-law remedies and narrows express preemption)
- DiFiore v. American Airlines, Inc., 646 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2011) (first circuit held MA Tip Law preempted; related common-law claims discussed)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (saving clause treated narrowly; preemption scope framed)
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (preemption scope and effect; understanding of preemption reach)