Troy G. Avera vs Airline Pilots Assoc. Int'l, Airline Pilots Assoc. Master Exec. Counsel
436 F. App'x 969
11th Cir.2011Background
- Avera, proceeding pro se, sued ALPA and related entities for ADEA, ERISA, and DFR under the Railway Labor Act, plus constitutional challenges to the FTEPA and the FAA Age 60 Rule.
- The district court dismissed the ADEA, ERISA, and constitutional claims for failure to state a claim and dismissed the RLA claim as time-barred.
- Avera challenged the FTEPA as unconstitutional and sought to declare the Age 60 Rule unconstitutional.
- The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of the FTEPA.
- The government urged that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Avera’s challenge to the Age 60 Rule, and the panel agreed on part of that issue, remanding for dismissal on jurisdiction grounds.
- On appeal, the court affirmed in part and remanded in part, with instructions to dismiss the Age 60 Rule constitutional challenges for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there subject-matter jurisdiction over the Age 60 Rule challenge? | Avera contends district court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Age 60 Rule challenge. | Defendants (and court) argued exclusive appellate review for FAA orders; district court lacked jurisdiction over collateral challenge. | Remanded for dismissal of the Age 60 Rule challenge for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Is the FTEPA constitutional under due process, equal protection, bill of attainder, and takings clauses? | FTEPA violates due process, equal protection, is a bill of attainder, and effects a taking. | FTEPA passes rational-basis review; no retroactive punishment; no takings; no bill of attainder; | FTEPA survives rational-basis scrutiny; no constitutional violation found. |
| Does the FTEPA’s non-retroactivity and protection-for-compliance provisions violate due process or equal protection? | Non-retroactivity and compliance protections are unconstitutional restraints on rights. | Provisions rationally related to labor-market stability and inter-law consistency. | Provisions upheld; constitutional challenges rejected. |
| Did Avera state an ADEA claim to survive dismissal when considering protection-for-compliance? | ALPA discrimination or age-based effects could support ADEA claim. | Protection-for-compliance bars liability for actions in conformance with the statute and Age 60 Rule; no but-for causation shown. | ADEA claim properly dismissed. |
| Did Avera sufficiently plead an ERISA claim? | Bond-proceeds distribution or plan elements could be ERISA benefits. | ERISA applies to ongoing employee-benefit plans; lump-sum bond proceeds do not create ERISA benefits. | ERISA claim properly dismissed. |
| Did the district court properly dismiss the DFR and fiduciary-duty claims as untimely or unsupported? | DFR claim timely under delayed discovery; fiduciary claim plausibly pled. | Six-month limitations apply; discovery occurred by Oct. 2007; June 2009 complaint untimely; fiduciary claim unsupported. | DFR and fiduciary-duty claims properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamiami Partners, Ltd. ex rel. Tamiami Dev. Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla., 177 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 1999) (jurisdictional de novo review standard)
- Brantley v. City of Brantley, 981 F.2d 521 (11th Cir. 1993) (exclusive appellate forum; collateral challenge barred)
- Green v. Brantley, 981 F.2d 514 (11th Cir. 1993) (interpretation of agency orders and broad review)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (procedural due process and access to courts)
- Knight v. Minnesota State Bd. for Cmty. Colleges, 465 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1984) (due process: capital of state action; property interests)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1967) (duty of fair representation standard)
- Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (economic regulation and rational basis review)
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (U.S. 2000) (age classifications; rational-basis review)
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1991) (mandatory retirement; equal protection)
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1991) (age classifications generally rational-basis)
- Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1987) (ERISA scope; lump-sum payments)
- Nixon v. Administrator of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1977) (bill of attainder limitations)
- O’Neill, Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v., 499 U.S. 65 (U.S. 1991) (duty of fair representation standards)
- George Kabeller, Inc. v. Busey, 999 F.2d 1417 (11th Cir. 1993) (exclusive forum and review of orders)