Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines, Inc.
2:16-cv-12884
E.D. Mich.Jun 7, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charee Stanley, a Muslim flight attendant, converted to Islam in 2013 and requested a religious accommodation to avoid personally serving alcohol after learning serving alcohol violated her religious beliefs.
- ExpressJet initially allowed Stanley to have coworkers serve alcohol upon her relaying passenger requests; the arrangement worked without reported disruption for months.
- In August 2015 ExpressJet revoked the accommodation after coworker complaints and placed Stanley on administrative leave pending eventual termination; she exhausted EEOC remedies and sued under Title VII and Michigan’s ELCRA.
- ExpressJet moved to dismiss or for summary judgment arguing the Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempts Stanley’s claims because resolution would require interpreting a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and affect seniority rights.
- The district court declined to consider the CBA on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the CBA was not referenced in the complaint and appears central to ExpressJet’s defense rather than to the complaint’s allegations.
- The court denied ExpressJet’s motion without reaching the merits of RLA preemption, allowing ExpressJet to reassert the argument after discovery; ExpressJet was ordered to answer within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RLA/CBA preempts Stanley’s Title VII/ELCRA claims | Stanley asserts her statutory claims are independent and do not require interpreting the CBA | ExpressJet contends resolution requires interpreting the CBA (seniority/assignment rules) so claims are RLA-preempted or must be arbitrated | Court declined to decide preemption at pleading stage because CBA was not in the complaint; denial without prejudice to raise later after discovery |
| Whether the court may consider the CBA on a 12(b)(6) motion | Stanley argues the CBA is not referenced or central to her complaint so it cannot be considered | ExpressJet argues the CBA is central and can be judicially noticed or considered | Court held the CBA was not referenced in the complaint and is central to the defense, so it will not be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion |
| Whether to convert the motion to one for summary judgment | Stanley opposed conversion, arguing discovery is needed | ExpressJet asked for summary judgment based on the CBA | Court declined to convert the motion to summary judgment, noting premature summary judgment would be improper absent discovery |
| Sufficiency of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) | Stanley’s complaint plausibly alleges denial and revocation of a religious accommodation and retaliation | ExpressJet raised only RLA preemption; no other Rule 12(b)(6) insufficiency argued | Court found the complaint sufficiently pleaded for now and denied dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and plausibility)
- Emswiler v. CSX Transp., Inc., 691 F.3d 782 (Sixth Circuit on RLA arbitration/merits vs. jurisdiction)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (employer not required to violate seniority system to accommodate religion)
- Brown v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 254 F.3d 654 (RLA preemption when CBA interpretation resolves discrimination claim)
- Cooper v. Oak Rubber Co., 15 F.3d 1375 (Hardison applied; limits on reasonable accommodation that impair coworkers’ contractual rights)