J udge J os eph F. B i anco, of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ct * of N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 08- 4122
- cv

( L) , 0 8- 4128
- cv

( co n) , 0 8- 4130
- cv

( co n) L ind s ay v . A s s ’ n o f

P ro f ’ lF l ight Att e ndants UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F ORTH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT
A ugus tT erm , 2008 ( A r gued: J ul y6, 2009 D eci ded: Sept ember21, 2009)

D ocketN os . 08- 4122- cv ( L ) , 08- 4128- cv ( con) , 08- 4130- cv ( con)
J ILL L IND SA Y , in d iv id u a lly a n d o n b e h a lf o f a ll o th e rs s im ila rl ys itu a te d , C A R O L J OH NS ON , C ON ST AN C E L A M ATT INA , D AN IE L S AN TI AG O , D EB ORAH W HI TTING TON , D OTT I E L ON G , J AN ET G O LD , J UD I TH A L EXAND ER , K AR EN R I VOI RA , L AU R ENC E E. S AL OMO N III , P A T R IC IA

K ENN EDY , P ATT Y G ENTRY , R EB EC C A S MI TH , P l aint i f f s-App el l an t

s,

— v . — A S S O CIA T ION OF P R O FE S S IO N A L F L I GH T A TTEN DANTS , a b u s in e s s e n tity o f u n k n o w n typ e , A MR C ORPO RATI ON , a D el aw are corporat i on , al so kn ow n as A m eri can A i rl i nes, A MER I C AN A I R L INES , I NC . , al s o know n as A m er i can Eagl e, and J OH N W ARD , D ef end an t s-App el l ees.
B e f o re: R AG GI , H A LL , C i r cui tJudges , and B I ANCO , D is tr i ct Judge
. *

__________________2

P l ai nti ffs, sui ng i nd i vidual l yand on beh al f of a pu t at i ve c lass of f

l i gh tat t end ants , c h a llen g e th e v a lid ityo f a R e stru c tu r in g P a rticip a tio n A g re e m e n t re a c h e d b e tw e e n th e ir for m erempl oy erA m er i can A i r l i nes and i t s p are n tA M R C orpor at i on ( col l ect i vel y , t he

“ c o rp o ra te d e f

e n d a n ts” ), an d th e ir u n io n th e A ss o c iatio n o f P ro f e ss io n a l F lig h t A tten d a n ts and i t s for m erpr es i dent Jo h n W ar d ( col l ect i vel y , t he “uni on defe ndant s ”)
. Pl ai nt i ffs now app e a l a n a war d o f

s u mma r yj u d g me n te n t e r e d i n t h e Ea s t e r n Di s t r i c to f New Y o r k ( N i na G e rs h o n , Judge ) i n favor t he corpor at e defenda nt s on pl ai nt i ffs ’ R ai l w ayL aborA ct( “R L A ”)
a n d sta te law c laim s, a n d in f a v o r o f th e u n io n d e f

e n d a n ts o n p lain tiff

s’ b re a c h o f

th e d u ty of f ai r r epresent at i on cl ai m . P l ai nti ffs’ app eal fai l s becau se ( 1) the rel evan tR L A provis i on s, 4 5 U. S. C. § 1 5 2 , F i r s ta n d S e v e n t h , d o n o tp r o v i d e a p r i v a t e c a u s e o f a c t i o n ; ( 2 ) t h e RLA pr eempt s t hei rs t at e l aw cl ai m s ; and ( 3) pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o adduce s uffi ci entevide n ce of a
m a te ri a l f

a c tu a l d is p u te o n th e irf a irre p re s e n ta tio n c la im to d e f e a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A F F I R MED .

E MI L Y M. B ASS , B r ookl yn, N ew Y or k ( St even M
. N achman, N ew Y or k, N ew Y o rk ; M ich a e l S . H a b e r, N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk ; M a rtin G a rb u s, D a v is & G ilb e rt , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , on the bri ef ), f or P l aint i

f fsAp p e lla n ts . S TEP HEN B. M OL DO F (M ic h a e l L . W in s to n , T ra v is M . M a s tr o d d i, on the br i ef ), C o h e n , W e is s a n d S im o n L L P , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk ,f or D ef end an tsAppel l ees A s s oci at i on of P r of es s i onalF l ightA t t endants a nd John W ard
.3 T HOMAS E. R EINERT , J R . (J o n a th a n C . F ri tts , on the br i ef ), M organ, Lew i s & B o c k iu s L L P , W a s h in g to n , D .C ., f orD ef endant s -Appel l ees A m er i can A i r l i nes , I

nc. and A M

R C or por at i on .
R EEN A R AG GI , C i r cui tJudge : Pl ai nt i ffs J i l l L i nds ay , C ar ol J ohns on, C ons t ance L aM at t i na, D ani el Sant i ago, D ebor ah W hi t t i ngt on, D ot t i e Long, J anetG ol d, J udi t h A l exande r , K ar en R i voi r a, L aur ence E
. S a l o m o n I I I , P a tr ic i a K e n n e d y, P a t t y G e n t r y, a n d R e b e c c a S m i t h , p r o c e e d i n g i n d i v i d u a l l y,
a n d in M s. L in d sa y ’s c a se , a lso o n b e h a lf o f a p u tativ e c las s o f

f lig h t atte n d a n ts, f

iled su it i n th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f N e w Y o rk (N in a G e rs h o n , Judge ),
c h a llen g in g th e v a lid ityo f a R e stru c tu rin g P a rt ic ip a tio n A g re e m e n t re a c h e d b e tw e e n th e ir fo rm er empl oy er , defe ndant s A m er i can A i r l i nes and i t s par entA M R C orpor at i on ( col l ect i vel y , “A m er i can A i r l i nes ”) , and thei runi on, defe ndant A s s oci at i on of Pr ofes s i onal Fl i ghtA t t endant s , and i t s for m er pr es i dent defe ndant J ohn W ar d ( col l ect i vel y , “A PFA ” or t he “uni on”)
. Pl ai nt i ffs now appea l an aw ar d of s um m aryj udgm entent er ed on J ul y22, 2008, in f av o r of A m erican A ir li n es o n p lai n ti ff s’ c lai m s u n d er the R ail w ayL ab o r A ct (“R L A ”), 45 U
. S. C
. § 151 ets eq. ; i n favorof A m eri ca n A ir li nes and A PFA on pl ai nt i ffs ’ s t at e l aw
c laim s; a n d in f

a v o r o f A P F A o n p lain tiff

s’ c laim o f

a b re a c h o f

th e d u tyo f

f a ir
r epr es ent at i on. W e conc l ude that pl ai nt i ffs ’ chal l enge fai l s beca us e ( 1) t he s t atut or ys ect i ons
r el i ed on bypl ai nt i ffs t o s uppor tt hei rR L A cl ai m , 45 U
. S. C
. § 152, Fi r s t and S eventh, do not pr ovi de for a pr i vat e caus e of act i on; ( 2) t he R L A pr eempt s pl ai nt i ffs ’ s t at e l aw cl ai m s ; and4

( 3) pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o adduce s uffi ci ent evi dence of a m at er i al fac ton t hei rfai rr epr es ent at i on
c la im to d e f

e a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A c c o rd in g ly, w e a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt in f

a v o r o f d e f e n d a n ts . I . Backg r ound T he d i stri ct cou rt ’s t ho rough op i nion fai rl y chronicl es t he co m plex even t s gi ving ri se to d e f e n d a n ts’ R e stru c tu rin g P a rticip a tio n A g re e m e n t, w h ich p lain tiff s c h a llen g e in th is
a c t i o n . S e e M a r c o u x v . Am
. Ai r l i n e s , I n c . , - - - F
. S u p p . 2 d
- - - , 2 0 0 6 WL 8 4 2 8 8 8 ( E
. D. N. Y. 2 0 0 6 ). W e a ss u m e f

a m ili a rityw ith th a t o p in io n , an d w e d o n o t o u rse lv e s re p e a t th e f a c ts
e x c e p t as n e c e ss a ryto d isc u ss p lain tiff s’ a p p e a l o f

th e a w a rd o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t. I I . D i s cus s i on A
. St andar d of R evi ew W e re vi ew an aw ar d of s um m aryj udgm entde novo, “cons t rui ng t he evi dence i n t he lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rtya n d d r a w in g a ll rea so n a b le in f e re n c e s in its fa v o r. ” S C R Jo int V en ture L
. P
. v . W arsh aw sk y , 5 5 9 F
. 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 7 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). S u m m ary j udgm entm aybe gr ant ed onl y“i f the pl eadi ngs , t he di s coveryand di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff

i davi t s s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac t and thatt he
m ovant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a m at t er of l aw . ” Fed. R
. C i v. P. 56( c)
. “A n i s s ue of f act i s genui ne i f the evi dence i s s uch thata r eas onabl e j ur ycould return a ver di ctfort he
n o n mov i n g p a r t y . A f

a c t i s ma t e r i a l i f i t mi g h t a f f e c t t h e o u t c o me o f t he s ui t under t he5

g o v e rn in g la w .” S C R J o in t V e n tu re L .P . v . W a rs h a w s k y , 5 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 7
. B. P l a i n t i f

f s ’ Ra i l wa yLa b o rAc tCl a i ms Pl a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a tAm e r i c a n Ai r l i n e s v i o l a t e d t h o s e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e RLA codi fi ed at45 U
. S. C
. § 152, Fi r s tand Seventh bys uppl ant i ng an exi s t i ng col l ect i ve bar ga i ni ng a gr e e ment w i t h t he Res t ruc tur i ng Pa r t i c i pa t i on A gr e e ment . Se c t i on 15 2, F i rs t st at es as fol l ow s: Itsh all b e the d u tyo f a ll ca rri ers, the ir o ff icers, ag en ts, an d em p loy ee s to e x ert everyr eas onabl e effor t t o m ake a nd m ai nt ai n agr eement s conce r ni ng r at es of pay , rul es , and w or ki ng condi t i ons , and t o s et t l e al l di s put es , w hetherar i s i ng outof the appl i cat i on of s uch agr eement s orot herw i s e, i n or der t o avoi d any i nt errupt i on t o comm er ce ort o t he oper at i on of anycarr i ergr ow i ng outof any di s put e betw een the ca r r i erand the empl oy ees t her eof. 4 5 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 , F irst. S ect i on 15 2, S even t h st at es as fol l ow s: N o carr i er , i t s offi cer s , oragent s s hal l change t he ra t es of pay , rul es , or w o rk in g c o n d it io n s o f

its e m p lo y e e s, a s a c las s, a s e m b o d ied in a g re e m e n ts e x c e p t in th e m a n n e r p re sc rib e d in su c h a g re e m e n ts o r in se c tio n 1 5 6 o f th is t i t l e. I d. § 152, Seventh. N o par t yhas poi nt ed us t o anycas e l aw addr es s i ng w hether t hes e sec t i ons pr ovi de for a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on by i ndi vi dual empl oy ees , norhave w e i dent i fi ed any
. I n cons i der i ng this qu esti o n o f f

ir st im p re ssion , w e b eg in b yrev iew ing the g en era l enf o rce m en t struc ture
o f t h e RL A.6 1
. Ar b i t r a l Re s o l u t i o n o f M a j o ra n d M i n o rDi s p u t e s Und e rt h e RLA “The R ai l w ayL aborA ctw as pas s ed i n 19 2 6 to encour age c ol l ect i ve bar gai ni ng by
r ai l r oads and theirempl oy ees i n or dert o pr event , i f pos s i bl e, w as t eful s t r i kes and i nt errupt i ons of i nt er s t at e comm er ce. ” D etr oi t& T oledo S h o re L i ne R
. R
. C o. v. U ni t ed T ra n sp . U n io n , 3 9 6 U .S
. 1 4 2 , 1 4 8 (1 9 6 9 ); se e a lso 4 5 U .S .C . § 1 8 1 (a m e n d in g R L A to a p p ly t o i nt er s t at e ai rcarr i er s )
. T ow ar d t hi s end, t he R L A pr ovi des an arbi t r al m echa ni s m for“the prom pt and o rd e rly se t t l em ent” of t w o clas ses of dis pu t es bet w een u nions and em ploy ers . H aw ai i an A i r l i nes , I nc. v. N or r i s , 512 U
. S. 246, 252 ( 1994) ( quot i ng 45 U
. S. C
. § 151a)
. T he fi r s tcl as s , r efe r r ed t o as “maj or ” di s put es , r el at es t o “the form at i on of col l ect i ve [ba r gai ni ng] agreem e nt s ore ff

or t s t o s e c ur e t he m. ” Cons ol i da t e d Rai l Corp. v. Ry
. Lab orExe c ut i ves’ A ss’ n, 49 1 U
. S
. 29 9, 30 2 (198 9) ( i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). T he seco nd cl ass, know n as “mi nor ” di s p u tes , s ee i d. at303, “gr ow [s ] outof gr i evanc es oroutof the i nt erpr et at i on orappl i cat i on of agr eement s cover i ng r at es o f p ay , rul es , orw or ki ng condi t i ons , ” 45 U
. S. C
. § 151a( 5)
. I n ot her w or ds , “maj ordi s put es s eek t o cr eat e contr actual
r i ght s , m i nor di s put es t o enfor ce t hem. ” H aw ai i an A i r l i nes , I nc. v. N or r i s , 512 U
. S. at253.

2
. Pr i v a t e En f

o r c e me n to f

t h e RLA B ey ond t he arbi t r al s cheme forr es ol vi ng di s put es betw een e m pl oy er s and uni ons , t he R L A a lso p ro v id e s f

o r f e d e ra l c rim in a l e n f

o rc e m e n t. S e e 4 5 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 , T e n th (“ It sh a ll be the dutyof anyU ni t ed St at es at t or neyt o w hom anydul ydes i gnat ed r epr es en tat ive of a7

carr i er ’s em pl oy ees m ayappl yt o i ns t i tut e i n t he pr opercour tand t o pr os ecut e undert he di r ec t i o n o f t h e At t o r n e y Gen e r a l o f t h e Uni t e d St a t e s , a l l n e c e s s a r y p r o c e e d i n g s f o rt he
e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th e p ro v isio n s o f th is se c tio n .”). A lth o u g h th e R L A d o e s n o t ex p licitly p r o v i d e a p r i v a t e c i v i l c a u s e o f a c t i o n , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r th a s f o u n d s u c h a n a c t i o n b y a
u n io n im p lic it in th e s ta tu to ry sc h e m e . In T e x a s & N e w O rle a n s R a ilr o a d C o . v . B ro th e rh o o d o f R a ilw a y& S tea m sh ip C l erks , t he Supr eme C our tr ecogni zed a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on bya uni on al l egi ng t hatt he defe ndantcompany w as “i nt er fer i ng w i t h, i nfl uenci ng, orcoer ci ng t he cl er i cal empl oy ees of t he rai l road com pan y i n t he m at t er of t heirorganizat i on and desi gn at i on of represent at i ves” i n v i olat i on of § 15 2, T hir d. 28 1 U
. S
. 54 8, 55 5 (1930 ). T he C ou rt con cl ud ed t hat “C on gress , in the legislat ion o f 1 9 2 6 , w h il e e labo rati n g a p lan fo r a m icab le a d justm en ts an d v o lun tary arb itrati o n o f d ispu tes b etw ee n co m m o n ca rri ers a n d their em p loy ee s, tho u g h t i t nec essa ry to im p o s e , a n d d id im p o s e , c e rt a in d e f in ite o b lig a tio n s e n f

o rc e a b le b yju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s .” I d. at567. I n fac t , pr i vat e ci vi l pr ocee di ngs cons t i tute the bul k of ca s es ar i s i ng undert he R L A
. See U ni t ed St at es v. W i ns t on, 558 F. 2d 105, 108 & n. 3 ( 2d C i r . 1977) ( not i ng “[t ] he p a u c ityo f

c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r § 1 5 2 , w h e n c o n tra ste d w ith th e a c tiv e p u rsu it o f c iv il reli ef there u n d er” ). A l t hough m uch of the c ase l aw i nvol vi ng pr i vat e ca us es of ac t i on under§ 152
conce r ns cl ai m s br oughtbyoragai ns t a cert i fi ed uni on, ours i s t erci r cui t s have r ecogni zed an i m pl i ed pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on fori ndi vi dual empl oy ees agai ns tt hei rempl oy erunderSect i on 152, Four t h i ns t ruct s t hatan empl oy erm aynot“denyori n anyw ayques t i on 1 t he r i ghtof i t s empl oy ees t o j oi n, or gani ze, or as s i s t i n or gani zi ng t he l aboror gani zat i on of t hei rchoi ce, and i ts hal l be unl aw ful foranycarri er to interfer e i n anyw ayw i t h t he or gani zat i on of i t s empl oy ees . ” 45 U
. S. C
. § 152, Four t h. Sect i on 152, T hi r d i ns t ruct s t hat n e ith e r l a b o r no r m a n a g e m e n t m a y“ in ter f e re w ith , inf

lu e n c e , o r c o e rc e th e o th e r [ p a rty ] in its c h o ic e o f

re p re s e n ta tiv e .” 4 5 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 , T h ir d
. Sect i on 152, Second i ns t ruct s t hatal l di s put es betw een a carr i erand i t s empl oy ees 2 “s hal l be cons i der ed, and, i f pos s i bl e, deci ded
. . . i n a confe r ence b etw ee n [d es i gnat ed] r epr es ent at i ves . ” 45 U
. S. C
. § 152, Second. Secti o n 1 5 2, N i nt h i ns t ruct s t he M edi at i on B oar d t o r es ol ve di s put es “as t o w ho ar e the [de s i gnat ed] r epr es ent at i ves . ” 45 U
. S. C
. § 152, N i nt h. 8 c e rta in R L A p ro v isio n s, n o tab ly§ 1 5 2 , T h ird a n d F o u rth
. S e e , e .g ., B e n se l v . A lli e d P ilo ts A s s ’ n, 387 F. 3d 298, 318 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( col l ect i ng cas es ) ; Fennes s yv. Sw
. A i r l i nes , 91 F. 3d 1359, 1362- 64 ( 9t h C i r . 1996) ; St epani s chen v. M er chs
. D es pat ch T r ans p. C orp. , 722 F. 2d 922, 927 ( 1s tC i r . 1983)
. T he Thi r d C ir cui texpl ai ned that“[i ] m pl y i ng a pr i vat e ca us e of act i on fori ndi vi dual empl oy ees under45 U
. S. C
. § 152, T hi r d & Four t h i s appr opr i at e gi ven th a t th o se se c ti o n s p r o h ib it c a r r ie r s f r o m d is c r im in a ti n g a g a in s t e m p lo ye e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith
u n io n o rg a n izin g a c tiv iti e s.” B e n se l v . A lli e d P ilo ts A ss ’n , 3 8 7 F .3 d a t 3 1 8 (e m p h a sis in 1
or i gi nal )
. B y contr as t , t he T hi r d C i r cui t decl i ned t o fi nd an i m pl i ed pri vat e ca us e of a ct i on fori ndi vi dual empl oy ees i n § 152, Second an d N inth beca us e, al t hough t he s t atut e “may i ndi cat e a c ongr es s i onal i nt entt o cr eat e a pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on fora dul ycert i fi ed
r epr es ent at i ve t hat i s i nj ur ed pur s uant t o t hes e pr ovi s i ons , ” t hat “does not i m p lythat C ongr es s i nt ended t o cr eat e a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on forany g rou p o r groups of i ndi vi dual
e m p lo y e e s c la im in g to a c t o n b e h a lf o f th e re le v a n t e m p lo y e e s .” Id . a t 3 1 9
. 2W e have expr es s ed s om e doubtaboutw hether , i n l i ght of m or e r ece nt cas es , w e may 3 still i m p lya p riv a te r ig h t o f a c tio n b a se d o n th e C o rt v . A sh f a c to rs. S e e H a llw o o d R e a lty Par t ner s , L
. P. v. G ot ham P ar t ner s , L
. P. , 286 F. 3d 613, 619 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( not i ng t hat , aft er C or tv. A s h, t he Supr eme C our t“foc u sed the anal y s i s on t he s i ngl e ques t i on of w hether co n g ression al i n tent to cre ate a p ri v ate c au se o f a cti o n ca n b e fo u n d in th e rel ev an t st atute” ); O l m s t ed v. Pr uco L i fe I ns . C o. of N
. J
. , 283 F. 3d 429, 434 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( not i ng t hatr ece nt S u p rem e C o u rtd ec isi o n s h av e “ su b o rd in a t[ e d the C o rtv . A sh fa ctors] to statutorytext”). S and ov al , ho w ever, do es not purportt o o verrule C ortv. A sh. A ccordi ng l y , w e app l yt hese 9 3. Sect i on 152, Fi r s tand Seventh D o N otPr ovi de a Priva te C aus e of A ct i on A gai ns tt hi s backgr ound, w e cons i derw hether§ 152, Fi r s torSeven th p r ovi des an in d iv id u a l e m p lo y e e w ith a p riv a te rig h t o f a c tio n a g a in st his e m p lo y e r. B e c a u se o u r ta sk is t o as cert ai n C ongr es s ’ s inten t, w e l ook fi r s tt o t he t extand s t ructur e of the s t atut e. See A l exande rv. Sandoval , 532 U
. S. 275, 286- 87 ( 2001)
. I f C ongr es s has m ani fes t ed no i nt ent t o pr ovi de a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on, w e ca nnotcr eat e one. See i d. W e i dent i fynot hi ng i n t he R L A ’ s t extors t ructur e s ugges t i ng C ongr es s ’ s i nt entt o cr eat e a pr i vate rem ed y . W e next pr ocee d t o cons i der“w hethera pr i vat e r emedy i s i m pl i ci ti n [the] s t atut e. ” C or tv. A s h, 422 U
. S
. 66 , 78 (1975 ). In und ert aking t his second i nq uiry , fou r fact ors gui de o ur anal y si s: Fi r s t , i s t he pl ai nt i ff one of the cl as s for w hos e espe ci al benef i tt he s t atut e w as enac t ed – t hat i s , does t he s t atut e cr eat e a f eder al r i ghti n favorof the pl ai nt i ff? Second, i s t her e anyi ndi cat i on of l egi s l at i ve i nt ent , expl i ci tor i m pl i ci t , ei t her t o cr eat e s uch a r emedyort o denyone? T h i r d, i s i tcons i s t entw i t h t he under l y i ng purpos es of t he l egi s l at i ve s cheme t o i m pl y s uch a r emedyfort he p lain tiff ? A n d f in a lly , is th e c a u se o f

a c tio n o n e tra d iti o n a llyre leg a ted to sta te l aw , i n an ar ea ba s i cal l yt he conc ern of the St at es , so that it w oul d be i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o i n f

e ra c a u s e o f

a c t i o n b a s e d s o l e l yo n f e d e r a l l a w? I d. ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. For t he r eas ons s t at ed i n t he nextt hr ee 3f

a c to rs to ill u m in a te o u r a n a ly sis o f c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t. W e d isc u ss p lain tiff

s’ c laim a g a in st A P F A f o r b r e a c h o f

th e d u tyo f

f a ir 4 re p re se n tatio n in f

ra a t [ 25- 31]
. 10 su b se c tio n s o f

th is o p in io n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t C o n g re ss d id n o t in ten d to c re a te a p riv a te
cau s e o f a c t i o n f o re mpl o y e e s t o e n f

o r c e § 1 5 2 , Fi r s to rSe v e n t h
. Th e a p p r o p r i a t e r e m edy f o r in ju rie s o f th e so rt p lain tiff

s a lleg e is a c laim a g a in st th e ir u n io n f o r b re a c h o f

th e d u ty of fa i rr epr es ent at i on. 4

a. T ex t and S tru cture T h e tex t o f

§ 1 5 2 , F irst a n d S e v e n th re v e a ls n o c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t to c re a te a p riv a te rig h t o f a c tio n . “S tatu tes th a t f o c u s o n th e p e rso n re g u late d ra th e r th a n th e in d iv id u a ls p ro te c te d c re a te n o im p lic a tio n o f a n in te n t to c o n f

e r ri g h ts o n a p a rt ic u la r c la s s o f p e rs o n s .” A l exande rv. Sandoval , 532 U
. S. at 289 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o B el l i koff
v. E at on V ance C orp. , 481 F. 3d 110, 116 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( “[T] he abs ence of ‘ r i ght s - cr eat i ng l anguage ’ i ndi cat es a l ack of congr es s i onal i nt entt o cr eat e pr i vat e r i ght s of ac t i on. ”)
. Sect i on 152, Fi r s ti m pos es a “duty ” on “a l l carr i er s , t hei r offi cer s , agent s , and empl oy ees . ” Li kew i s e, § 1 5 2 , S e v e n th b a rs c e rta in a c tio n s b ya “ c a rrie r, it s o f f ice rs, o r a g e n ts.” B e c a u se b o th p ro v isio n s f

o c u s o n th e re g u late d p a rties , w e d isc e rn n o in ten t to c o n f e r p riv a telye n f

o rc e a b le ri gh t s. T h e stat u te ’ s s t ructur e al s o s uppor t s t hi s concl us i on. A s t he Supr eme C our thas
re c o g n ize d , “ [ t]h e e x p re ss p ro v isio n o f o n e m e th o d o f e n f o rc in g a su b sta n tiv e ru le s u g g e stsT he R L A pr ovi des for cr i m i nal enfor cement of § 152, T hi r d, Four t h, Fi fth, Seventh, 5 and Ei ght h – not§ 152, Fi r s t . See 45 U
. S. C
. § 152, T enth. 11 t hatC ongr es s i nt ended t o pr ecl ude other s . ” A l exande r v. Sandoval , 532 U
. S. at 290. H er e, C on gress exp res sl ycon t em plat ed thatt he R L A w ou l d be enfo rced throug h arbi t ral pan el s,
see 4 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 8 4 , an d crim ina l p ro s ec u ti o n , see 4 5 U
. S
. C
. § 1 5 2 , T en th. C o n g ress’s 5 fai l ur e t o pr ovi de s i m i l ar l yforpr i vat e enf or cements i gnal s caut i on i n i nferr i ng anys uch r i ght of act i on. T he pr i or i m pl i cat i on of pr i vat e r i ght s under ot her s ubs ect i ons of 45 U
. S. C
. § 152
w arr ant s no di ffe r ent concl us i on. I ndeed, Sandoval i nvol ved T i t l e V I of t he C i vi l R i ght s A ct of 1964, 42 U
. S. C
. § 2000d etseq . In an ear l i erT i t l e V I cas e, t he C our thad not ed that pr i vat e pl ai nt i ffs coul d s ue under§ 601. See C annon v. U ni v. of C hi cago, 441 U
. S. 677, 694- 96 ( 1979)
. N evert hel es s , t hat cons i der at i on w as not r el evant t o Sandoval ’ s t extual and
s t ructur al anal y s i s of w hether § 602 cr eat ed a s i m i l ar pr i vat e r emedy
. W e ther efor e conc l ude th a t th e R L A ’s te x t an d stru c tu re d o e s n o t m a n if e st C o n g re ss ’s in ten t to c re a te a p riv a te enfor cementm echa ni s m foral l pr ovi s i ons of the s t atut e.

b. S ect i on 15 2, F i rs t O u r a n a ly sis of

the f o u r C o rtv . A sh fa ctors b o lst ers this co n clus ion
. T h e statuto ry requi rem ent i n § 15 2, F i rs tt hat carri ers stri ve to “m ai ntai n ag re e m e n ts con cerni ng rat es,
rul es , and w or ki ng condi t i ons , ” mayw el l benef i ti ndi vi dual empl oy ees , t he fi r s tr el evant f a c to r un d e r C o rt v . A sh , 4 2 2 U .S
. a t 7 8 . T h is is n o t su f f icie n t, ho w e v e r, to im p lya p riv a te
r i ghtof ac t i on beca us e the s t atut or ys cheme achi eves i t s purpos e bycol l ect i vi zi ng12

empl oy ees ’ i ndi vi dual i nt er es t s . See N L R B v. A l l i s - C hal m er s M fg. C o. , 388 U
. S. 175, 180 ( 1967) ( not i ng t hat“maj or i t y - rul e conc ept i s t oday unques t i onabl y att he ce nt erof ourfede r al l aborpol i cy ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) )
. T hus , § 152, Fi r s t i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om § 152, T hi r d and Four t h, forw hi ch pr i vat e r i ght s of ac t i on have be en r ecogni zed, i n t hatt he l at t erpr ovi s i ons ar e s peci fi cal l yai m ed at pr event i ng empl oy er i nt er fer ence w i t h i ndi vi dual empl oy ees ’ abi l i t yt o j oi n a col l ect i ve barg ainin g s cheme. W i t h t hati nt er es tpr ot ect ed, how ever , C ongr es s cl ear l yi nt end ed that i ndi vi dual pr efe r ence s gi ve w ayt o t he col l ect i ve pos i t i on embodi ed byt he ce r t i fi ed uni on r epr es ent at i ve. I ti s agr eements reached bys uch
r epr es ent at i ves w i t h empl oy er s t hat ar e t he focus of § 152, Fi r s t . See V i r gi ni an R y . C o. v. S y s. F e d ’n N o . 4 0 , 3 0 0 U .S
. 5 1 5 , 5 4 8 (1 9 3 7 ) (o b se rv in g th a t § 1 5 2 , F irst is c o n c e rn e d w ith
n eg o ti ati o n s b etw ee n an em p loy er a n d the “ au tho ri ze d rep rese n tat ive o f it s em p loy ee s”). I ndeed, t he s econd Cortv. A s h fac t ors i gnal s t hatC ongr es s di d noti nt end t o pr ovi de a pr i vat e ca us e of ac ti o n fo r i ndi vi dual empl oy ees i n § 152, Fi r s t . See 422 U
. S. at78. Sect ion 1 5 2 , S econd st at es t hat“[a ] l l di s put es betw een a carr i er. . . and i t s . . . empl oy ees
s hal l be cons i der ed, and, i f pos s i bl e, deci ded, w i t h al l expedi t ion , in confe r ence betw een
r epr es ent at i ves des i gnat ed and a ut hor i zed s o t o confe r , r es pect i vel y , byt he ca r r i er. . . and b yth e e m p lo y e e s th e re o f in ter e ste d in th e d isp u te .” 4 5 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 , S e c o n d (e m p h a sis
a d d e d ). S e c tio n 1 5 2 , F o u rth e x p lain s th a t th e v e ry “ r ig h t to o rg a n ize a n d b a rg a in
c o lle c tiv e ly” i s a c c o m p lis h e d “ th ro u g h re p re s e n ta tiv e s o f [ th e e m p lo y e e s ’] o w n c h o o s in g .” 4 5 U .S .C . § 1 5 2 , F o u rth (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h a t p ro v isio n f u rth e r sta tes th a t “[ t]h e m a jo rity13

of anycr aftorcl as s of empl oy ees s hal l have the r i ghtt o det erm i ne w ho s hall b e the rep rese n tat iv e o f the c raf t or class f

o r th e p u rpo ses o f th is ch ap ter. ” Id
. T ak en tog ethe r, t hes e pr ovi s i ons l eave no doubtt hat , w her e, as her e, a “c r aftorcl as s of e m pl oy ees ” has
se lec ted a re p re se n tativ e u n io n , C o n g re ss in ten d e d th e p o w e r to “ m a k e ” a n d th e d u tyto “mai nt ai n agr eement s conce r ni ng r at es of pay , rul es , and w or ki ng condi t i ons , ” i d. § 152, F ir st, to ru n b etw ee n the rep rese n tat ive un ion an d the c o m p an y . Ind ee d , the S u p rem e C o u rt has expl ai ned that“mem ber s [of a cr aftorcl as s ] cannotbar gai n i ndi vi dual l yon behal f of t hemsel ves as t o m at t er s w hi ch ar e prope r l y t he subj ectof col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng. ” St eel e v. L o u isvil le & N
. R
. C o . , 3 2 3 U
. S
. 1 9 2 , 2 0 0 (19 4 4 ); see also V ir g inian R y . C o . v . S y s. F ed ’n N o . 4 0 , 3 0 0 U .S . a t 5 4 8
. R el at edl y , w e conc l ude und ert he thi r d C ortv. A s h fac t ort hati tw oul d notbe
con si st ent “w i t h the und erl y i ng pu rposes o f t he l egis l at i ve sche m e” t o im plya pri vate cause of ac t i on forempl oy ees under§ 152, F ir s t . B yi t s t erm s , § 152, Fi r s tl i nks i t s r equi r ement to m a k e a n d m a in tain a g re e m e n ts to th e lar g e r R L A p u rp o se “ to a v o id a n y inte rru p tio n to
comm er ce ort o t he oper at i on of any carr i er gr ow i ng out of anydi s put e betw een the ca r r i er and the empl oy ees t her eof. ” 45 U
. S. C
. § 152, Fi r s t; s ee a l s o i d. § 151a( 1)
. A s des cr i bed
a b o v e , the sta tu te s e e k s to a c h iev e th is g o a l b yv e stin g c o llec tiv e b a r g a in in g a u th o rityin
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e u n i o n s . T h e S u p r e me Co u r th a s e x p l a i n e d t h a t , i n e n a c t i n g t h e RL A,

“ C o n g re ss h a s s e e n f

it t o c lo th e th e b a rg a in in g re p re se n ta ti v e w ith p o w e rs c o m p a ra b le to th o se p o ss e ss e d b y a leg isla tiv e b o d y b o th to c re a te a n d re stric t th e rig h ts o f th o se w h o m it14

r epr es ent s , buti thas al s o i m pos ed on the r epr es ent at i ve a c or r esp o n d ing d u ty . ” St eel e v. L oui s vi l l e & N
. R
. C o. , 323 U
. S. at202. A s s uch, t he R L A i s cons i s t entw i t h a [ n ]a tio n a l la b o r p o licy
. . . b u ilt o n th e p re m ise th a t b yp o o lin g th e ir e c o n o m ic s t r e n g t h a n d a c t i n g t h r o u g h a l a b o ro r g a n i z a t i o n f r e e l y c h o s e n b y t h e m a

j o r i t y, t he empl oy ees of an a ppr opr i at e uni t h av e the mosteff ect i ve means of bar gai ni ng forim p rov ement s i n w ages , hour s , and w or ki ng condi t i ons . T he p o l i c yt h e r e f

o r e e x t i n g u i s h e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l e m p l o y e e ’ s p o we rt o o r d e rh i s o wn r el at i ons w i t h hi s empl oy erand cr eat es a pow erv est ed i n t he chos en re p re s e n ta tiv e to a c t in th e in te re s ts o f a ll e m p lo y e e s . N L R B v . A llis
- C h a lm e rs M f g . C o ., 3 8 8 U .S . at 1 8 0 . T h e u n io n ’s a b ili tyto e x e rc ise th is
ves t ed author i t y i s pr ot ect ed byt he R L A
. A tt he s ame t i m e, i ti s t he uni on’ s “corr es pondi ng d u ty ” to th o se it rep re se n ts th a t en su re s th e f a ir e x e rc ise o f

th is a u th o rity . S tee le v . L o u isv ill e & N
. R
. C o. , 323 U
. S. at 202. I tcoul d notbe otherw i s e i n a s t atut or yr egi m e thatpr i or i t i zes
c o n tin u ity a n d “ m a

jo ri ty-ru le ” o v e r t h e “ c o m p le te s a tis f a c tio n o f a ll w h o a re re p re s e n te d .” N L R B v . A llis -C h a lm e rs M f g . C o ., 3 8 8 U .S . a t 1 8 0
. T he fact s o f t his case dem on strat e w hyi nd i vidual em ploy ee act i on s und er § 152 , F i rs t
w oul d be i nconsi s t entw i t h a s t atut or ys cheme embody i ng t hes e pr i nci pl es . T he R es t ructur i ng Par t i ci pat i on A gr ee m en t , w hi ch pl ai nt i ffs compl ai n fai l s t o m ai nt ai n a 2001 col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement( “C B A ”) , w as agr eed t o byA PFA on A pri l 8 , 2 0 0 3 , and appr oved byA PFA ’ s m ember s on A pr i l 16, 2003. I n t hatdocument , “the part i es agr ee that t he 2001 C B A s hal l r emai n i n ful l for ce and eff ect exce pt as m odi fi ed her ei n. ” A m ong t he
m odi fi cat i ons her e at i s s ue w as t he dat e for pos s i bl e amendm entof the C B A , w i t h t he uni on and i t s m ember s hi p agre eing to an ext ens i on fr om N ovember30, 2004, t o A pr i l 30, 2009.15

Fol l ow i ng t he di s cl os ur e o f the Speci al E xecut i ve R et i r ementPl an on A pr i l 17, 2003, t he
u n i o n e x t r a c t e d a c o n c e s s i o n f r o m Ame r i c a n Ai r l i n e s o n t h e p o i n t , ma k i n g t h e 20 01 CBA
a m e n d a b le o n e y e a r e a rl ie r, o n A p ri l 3 0 , 2 0 0 8
. H ow everdi s s at i s fi ed i ndi vi dual empl oy ees m aybe w ith t hes e modi fi cat i ons t o t he 200 1 C B A , al l ow i ng t hem t o s ue A m er i can A i r l i nes under§ 152, Fi r s tt o s etas i de a R es t ructur ing P ar t i ci pat i on A gr eementagr eed t o byt hei runi on r epr es ent at i ve and r at i fi ed b yth e u n io n m e m b e rsh ip w o u ld risk th e v e ry d isru p tio n in c o m m e rc e th a t th e R L A se e k s to
av o id. In d ee d , u n d er the ag ree d -t o m o d ifi ca ti o n s, A m erican A ir li n es c an n o t si m p lyrev ert t o the ori ginal t erm s of the 200 1 C B A
. P l ai nti ffs’ dis pu t e i s thu s not w i t h A m eri can A i rl i nes,
w hi ch c o u l d n o t t a k e t h e a c t i o n p l a i n t i f f s s e e k wi t h o u t v i o l a t i n g t h e mod i f i e d CBA , but
r atherw i t h t he uni on, w hi ch negot i at ed for t he m odi fi ed C B A t erm s t hatnow bi nd A m er i can A irline s an d th a t f

o rm th e b a sis o f

p lain tiff s’ c laim . A c laim o f

th is n a tu re is a p p ro p ria tely br o u ghtagai ns tt he uni on forbr eac h of the dutyof fa i rr epr es ent at i on. See N L R B v. A l l i s - C hal m er s M fg. C o. , 388 U
. S. at 181 ( “I tw as beca us e the nat i onal l aborpol i cyves t ed
u n ion s w ith p o w er to o rde r th e r e la tio n s o f e m p loy ee s w ith their em p loy er tha t th is C o u rt fo u n d itnece s s aryt o fas hi on t he dutyof fa i rr epr es ent at i on. ”) ; s ee a l s o i nfr a [ 25- 31] (discu ssing p lai n ti ff

s’ du tyo f f

air repre sen tat ion claim ).16 c. Sect i on 152, Seventh T he s t atut or ypr ovi s i on pr ohi bi t i n g car r i er s fr om changi ng “r at es of pay , rul es , or
w or ki ng condi t i ons ” except as pr es cr i bed byagr eementors t atut e, 45 U
. S. C
. § 152, Seventh,
m ay also b en efi templ oy ees , buther e t oo w e do notr ecogni ze a n i m pl i ed pr i vat e r i ghtof
ac ti o n b yind ividu al em p loy ee s ag ains t an e m p loy er. A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s o b se rv e d , the p u rp o se o f § 1 5 2 , S e v e n th is tw o f o ld : “it oper at es t o gi ve l egal and bi ndi ng eff ectt o col l ect i ve agr eements, an d it lay s dow n t he
re q u ir e m e n t th a t c o lle c tiv e a g re e m e n ts c a n b e c h a n g e d o n l y b yth e s ta tu to ry p ro c e d u re s .” D et roi t & T ol e do Sho r e Li ne R. R. Co. v. U ni t e d Tr a ns p. U ni on , 39 6 U. S. a t15 6. Thus , § 152, Seventh i s a “s t atus quo” pr ovi s i on, r equi r i ng “thatpar t i es t o a C B A governed byt he R L A m ai nt ai n obj ect i ve w or ki ng c o n d i t i o n s d u r i ng t he pende ncyof anydi s put e ar i s i ng under ( ordur i ng t he r e-ne got i at i on of) t hei rC B A
. ” I n r e N w . A i r l i nes C orp. , 483 F. 3d 160, 167 ( 2d C i r . 2007)
. M or e s peci fi cal l y , i n t he eve ntof a “ m aj ordi s put e, ” § 152, Seventh pr es erves t he s t atu s q uo w hi l e the empl oy erand the uni on engage i n t he negot i at i on r equi r ed by45 U
. S. C
. §§ 155 and 156. See C on so li d at ed R ai l C orp. v. R y . L aborE xecut i ves A s s ’ n, 491 U .S . a t 3 0 2 -0 3
. Pr eci s el ybeca us e the s t atut or ys cheme as in terpre t ed byt he court s r ecogni zes t he
r epr es ent at i ve uni on as t he pr operpar t yt o i nvoke § 152, Seventh, w e conc l ude thatt he
s econd a nd t hi r d C or tv. A s h fac t or s w ei gh heavi l y agai ns t r ecogni t i on of a pr i vat e r i ghtof
ac ti o n b y ind ividu al em p loy ee s. S ee 4 2 2 U
. S
. at 78
. T h e p rov isi o n is on lyim p li ca ted w h ere17

a “ c ra f t o r c las s” o f

e m p lo y e e s h a s a lre a d yse lec ted a re p re se n tativ e to b a rg a in c o llec tiv e ly
on i t s behal f, 45 U
. S. C
. § 152, Four t h, and w her e an e m pl oy erat t empt s t o m ake c hanges t hat aff ectt he empl oy ees “as a cl as s , ” § 152, Seventh. U nder t hos e ci r cumst ance s , an i ndi vi dual empl oy ee’ s “pow er t o or der hi s ow n r el at i ons w i th hi s empl oy er ” i s “ext i ngui s he[d] ” i n favor
o f “ a p o w e r v e s te d in th e c h o s e n re p re s e n ta tiv e to a c t in th e in te re s ts o f a ll e m p lo y e e s .” N L R B v . A llis -C h a lm e rs M f g . C o ., 3 8 8 U .S . a t 1 8 0
. B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t n e ith e r § 1 5 2 , F irst n o r § 1 5 2 , S e v e n th p ro v id e s a p riv a te
caus e of act i on t o i ndi vi dual empl oy ees agai ns tt hei rempl oy er s undert he ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed h ere , w e af

fi r m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of thes e cl ai m s and i t s entr yof ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f d e f e n d a n ts . C. P l a i n t i f

f s ’ S t a t e La w Cl a i ms P l a i n t i f f s a s s e r tt h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a tt h e i rs t a t e l a w c l a i ms
a g a in s t A m e ri c a n A ir lin e s w e re p re e m p te d b yth e R L A . S e e M a rc o u x v . A m . A ir lin e s , In c .,

- - - F
. S u pp. 2d -
- - , 2006 W L 842888, at*7. I n t hei rr epl ybr i ef, pl ai nt i ffs cl ar i fyt hatt hey appea l onl yt he di s m i s s al of ( 1) C l ai m E l even, i n w hi ch they char ge A PFA w i t h br eac h of i t s co ntr actual rel at i on shi p w i t h plai nti ffs as setforth in the u nion’s con st i tuti on and by l aw s; (2 ) C laim T w e lv e , in w h ich th e y c h a rg e A m e ric a n A irline s w ith in ten tio n a l in ter f e re n c e w ith t he contr actual r el at i ons hi p betw een A PFA and i t s m ember s ; and (3) C l ai m Si xt een, i n w hi ch p lain tiff s c h a rg e A m e ric a n A irline s w ith in ten tio n a llyc a u sin g A P F A to b re a c h c e rta in provis i on s of i t s const i tuti on and by l aw s r el at i ng t o b al l oti n g and el ect i on eeri ng pract i ces.18

A c c o rd in g ly, w e lim it o u r d is c u s s io n to th o s e c la im s . See M al oney v. C uom o, 554 F. 3d 56, 58 n. 2 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( not i ng t hatcl ai m s notpur s ued on appe al ar e dee m ed w ai ved)
. L i ke the d istri ct co u rt , w e c o n clud e tha t th ese claim s are p ree m p ted b ythe R L A , an d w e the ref o re
a f f irm th e ir d ism iss a l.

1
. P re e m p tio n in L a b o r C a se s G e n e ra lly T he Supr eme C our tes t abl i s hed the bas i c t enet s of fe der al pr eempt i on i n t he l abor cont ext i n San D i ego B ui l di ng T r ades C ounci l v. G arm on, 359 U
. S. 236 ( 1959)
. I n G arm on, t he Cou r t c o n s i d e r e d whe t h e r Ca l i f o r n i a c o u l d p r o v i d e d a ma g e s u n d e r s t a t e l a w t o an empl oy erbas ed on empl oy ee pi cket i ng, w hi ch t he C al i forni a S upr eme C our tdet erm i ned w as an unfa i rt r ade pr act i ce. See i d. at238- 39. T h e em p loy erhad begun a s i m ul t aneous pr ocee di ng befor e the N at i onal L abor R el at i ons B oar d ( “N L R B ”) , overw hi ch the R egi onal D ire c to r h a d d e c lin e d to e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n “ p re su m a b lyb e c a u se th e a m o u n t o f in ter sta te
comm er ce i nvol ved di d not m eet t he B oar d’ s m onet arys t andar ds i n t aki ng j ur i s di ct i on. ” I d. at238. T he C our ti dent i fi ed the i s s ue as “[t ] he ext ent t o w hi ch the var i egat ed l aw s of the
s ever al St at es ar e di s pl ace d bya si ngl e, uni for m , nat i onal rul e, ” namel y , t he N at i onal L abor R el at i on s A ct . Id. at24 1. T he C ou rtcon cl ud ed as fo l l ow s: W h e n it i s c lea r o r m a yf a ir ly b e a ss u m e d th a t th e a c tiv iti e s w h ich a S tate p u rp o rts to re g u late a re p ro tec ted b y§ 7 o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e latio n s A c t, orcons t i tut e an unf

ai rl aborpr act i ce unde r§ 8, d u e reg ard fort he fe der al enac t m entr equi r es t hats t at e j ur i s di ct i on m us ty i el d. T o l eave t he St at es fr ee t o r egul at e conduc ts o pl ai nl yw i t hi n t he ce nt r al ai m of fe der al r egul at i on19

i nv olves t oo greata dan ger of co nfli ctbetw e en p ow er as ser t ed b yC on gress a n d re q u ir e m e n ts im p o s e d b ys ta te la w . Id . at 2 4 4 . S tate d d if

f e r e n tl y, “ [ t]h e g o v e rn in g c o n sid e ra tio n is th a t to a llo w th e S tate s to contr ol act i vi t i es t hatar e pot ent i al l ys ubj ectt o fede r al r egul at i on i nvol ves t oo gr eata dange r of conf l i ctw i t h nat i onal l aborpol i cy . ” I d. at24 6
. T h i s pr i nci pl e, t he C our texpl ai ned, ap p li es re g ard less o f w h ethe r the st ate l aw at issue w as “tort law o f ge n era l ap p li ca ti o n [o r]
s peci al i zed l aborr el at i ons s t atut es . ” I d. at244 n. 3. Fi nal l y , t he C our texpl ai ned that , even i f appl i cat i on of s t at e l aw i n a part i cul ars i tuat i on w oul d not , i n fac t , confl i ctw i t h “the ac t i ve
as s er t i on of fe der al author i t y , ” i tw oul d nevert hel es s “i nvol ve[] a confl i ct w i t h fede r al pol i cy in th a t it in v o lv e s a llo w in g tw o la w -m a k in g s o u rc e s to g o v e rn .” Id . a t 2 4 7
. T h e G a rm o n ru le is su b jec t to tw o e x c e p tio n s. F irst, s tate s re tain p o w e r to re g u late act i vi t yt hati s “a mer el yper i pher al conce r n of the L abor M anage m ent R el at i ons A ct . ” I d. at243. Second, fede r al l aborl aw does not pr eempts t at e l aw w her e “the r egul at ed conduc t t ouched i nt er es t s s o deepl y r oot ed i n l ocal fee l i ng and r es pons i bi l i t y t hat , i n t he abs ence of compel l i ng congr es s i onal di r ect i on, [the C our t ] coul d noti nfert hatC ongr es s had depr i ved the S tat es o f th e p o w er to a ct. ” Id
. at 24 4
. A s an ex am p le o f th e sec o n d ex ce p ti o n , the C o u rt p o in ted to sta tes ’ co n tin u e d a b ili ty to re g u late “ v io len c e a n d im m in e n t th re a ts t o th e p u b lic
o rd e r.” Id . a t 2 4 7
.20 2. Pr eempt i on i n R L A C as es A lth o u g h G a rm o n w a s d e c id e d in th e c o n te x t o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e latio n s A c t,
s i m i l arr eas oni ng ani m at ed the S u p reme C our t ’ s appl i cat i on of pr eempt i on t o t he R ai l w ay L aborA cti n B r ot herhood of R ai l r oad Tra i nm en v. J acks onvi l l e Ter m i nal C o. , 394 U
. S. 369 ( 1969) ; s ee, e. g. , B ens el v. A l l i ed Pi l ot s A s s ’ n, 387 F. 3d at321 ( s ugges t i ng t hatG arm on w as “e x tend ed ” to th e R L A in Ja ck so n v il le T erm inal). In Ja ck so n v il le T erm inal, the C o u rt
cons i der ed w hether , i n t he cont extof a “maj or ” l abor di s put e gover ned byt he R L A , a Fl or i da
co u rt h ad the a u tho ri tyto en join the p icke ti n g o f a fre igh t r ail term inal fa cil ityu n d er state tort and l aborl aw s . 394 U
. S. at372- 77. T he C o u rt co ncl uded thati tdi d notbeca us e “the
e x e rc ise o f

p len a rysta te a u th o rityto c u rta il o r e n tirelyp ro h ib it se lf -h e lp w o u ld f

ru stra te
e f f e c tiv e im p lem e n tatio n o f th e [ R L A ’ s ] p r o c e ss e s.” Id . at 3 8 0 . T h e C o u rt re a c h e d th is concl us i on even w hi l e ac k n o w ledgi ng t hat , unl i ke the s i tuat i on pr es ent ed i n G arm on, i n a
m a jo r dis p u te u n d e r th e R L A th e re is “ n o a d m in istra tiv e a g e n c ye q u iv a len t to th e N L R B w ith ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r r a ilw a yla b o r d is p u te s .” Id . a t 3 8 4 n .1 9
. I n t he y ear s s i nce J acks onvi l l e Ter m i nal and G arm on w er e dec i ded, t hi s and other
c irc u its h a v e a p p lied th e ir re a so n in g to m a jo r R L A d isp u tes , s e e , e .g ., B e n se l v . A lli e d P ilo ts A s s ’ n, 387 F. 3d at320- 23 ( appl y i ng G arm on and J acks onvi l l e Ter m i nal t o R L A m aj or di s put e and aff

i r m i ng di s m i s s al of, i nt er al i a, t or t i ous and m al i ci ous i nt er fer ence , fr audul ent
m isr ep res e n ta tio n , an d b rea ch o f c o n tr ac t cl aim s); to m ino r R L A d ispu tes, see , e.g., B ee rs
v. S. Pac. T r ans p. C o . , 7 0 3 F. 2d 425, 428- 29 ( 9t h C i r . 1983) ( hol di ng t hati nt ent i onal21

i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s t r es s cl ai m br oughti n cont extof “mi nor ” R L A di s put e w as p re e m p ted u n d e r G a rm o n ); a n d to R L A iss u e s, lik e th o se p re se n ted h e re , n o t f a lli n g sq u a re ly
w ith in e ith e r ca teg o ry , se e , e .g ., K a u f m a n v . A lli e d P ilo ts A ss ’n , 2 7 4 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 2 -0 3 (5 th C i r . 200 1 ) ( a p p l y i n g Garmon t o h o l d t h i r d
- p a r t yt o r t i o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e c l a i m pr e e mpt e d by R L A ) ; A i rT r ans p. A s s ’ n of A m . v. C i t y & C ount y of San Fr anci s co, 266 F. 3d 1064, 1076 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ) (no ti n g tha t “ [ s ]t ate law s tha t frustrate the p u rpo se o f th e R L A are pr eempt ed”) ; Pet er s on v. A i r L i ne Pi l ot s A s s ’ n, I nt ’ l , 759 F. 2d 1161, 1170- 71 ( 4t h C i r . 1985) ( hol di ng t hatR L A pr eempt s s t at e l aw cl ai m forw r ongful di s char ge eve n w her e R L A arbi t r al
m echa ni s m noti m pl i cat ed beca us e “s t at e cl ai m s s eek t o vi ndi cat e r i ght s l ar gel ys ecur ed by fede r al l aw ”) ; cf. D el t a A i rL i nes v. K ram ar s ky , 650 F. 2d 1287, 1301- 02 ( 2d C i r . 1981) ( appl y i ng G arm on anal y s i s t o cl ai m t hatN ew Y ork D i s abi l i t yB enef i t s L aw ( “D B L ”) w as pr eempt ed byR L A , and hol di ng t hatbeca us e D B L “gove rns m at t er s out s i de the i nt ended
r eac h of the R L A
. . . the R L A t her efor e does notpr eemptt he D B L ”), v ac ated i n par ton di ffe r entgr ounds on r ehea r i ng b y 666 F. 2d 21, 26 ( 2d C i r . 1981) , aff i r m ed i n par tand
vaca t ed i n par ton ot hergr ounds byShaw v. D el t a A i r L i nes , I nc. , 463 U
. S. 85, 92 n. 8 ( 1983) ( not i ng t hat Second C i r cui tr es ol ved R L A pr eempt i on cl ai m agai ns tD el t a, butt hatcl ai m w as
n o t b e f o re S u p re m e C o u rt ). C ont r ary t o pl ai nt i ffs ’ as s er t i on, t hes e ca s es demonstr at e thatt he pr i nci pl es ani m at i ng G arm on, J acks onvi l l e Ter m i nal , and thei rpr ogenyar e app li ca b le t o pl ai nt i ffs ’ s t at e l aw cl ai m s . U nder l y i ng t hes e pri nci pl es i s a concern w i t h w hethert he part i cul ars t at e l aw ati s s ue22

m ay“s t and[] as an obst acl e t o t he accompl i s hm ent and exe cut i on of the ful l purpos es and
o b jec tiv e s o f C o n g re ss .” H in e s v . D a v id o w itz, 3 1 2 U .S . 5 2 , 6 7 (1 9 4 1 ). A c c o rd in g ly , co u rts h a v e i n v o k e d Gar m on t o p r e e mptc e r t a i n s t a t e l a w ca u s e s o f a c t i o n e v e n whe r e t h e RLA cl ai m at i s s ue i s not s ubj ect t o t he excl us i ve pr i m ary j ur i s di ct i on of t he N at ion al R ail r oad A dj us t mentBoar d ( “ N RA B”)
. Se e 45 U
. S. C. § 1 53 ; Pe nn s y l va ni a R. R. Co. v. D a y , 36 0 U. S. 5 4 8 , 5 5 2 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g e x c l u s i v e p r i ma r y j ur i s di c t i o n o f NR AB o v e rmi n o rRLA dis pu t e s )
. Si mi l a r l y , c ou r t s ha ve a pp l i e d J a c ks on vi l l e Termi na l t o pr e e mpt mor e t ha n just t hos e s t at e l aw cl ai m s t hatat t empt “t o r egul at e ec onom i c w ar far e bet w een di s put ant s s ubj ect to th e [ R L A ’s ] p ro c e s s e s .” S e e B ro th e rh o o d o f R .R
. T ra in m e n v . J a c k s o n v ille T e rm in a l C o ., 394 U
. S. at380. A l t hough expans i ve vi ew s of the pr eempt i on doctr i ne have notes cape d
c r i t i c i s m, s e e Wy e t h v . L e v i n e , 1 2 9 S
. Ct
. 1 1 8 7 , 1 2 1 1 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( T h o ma s , J
. , c o n c u r r i n g ) , we need not her e re ach t he out er boundar i es of t he doct r i ne t o concl ude t hat t he m ai nt enanc e of plai nti ffs’ s t at e t ortcl ai m s “w o u ld f ru strat e effecti ve im plem entat i on of the [R L A ’s ] pr oces s es . ” B r ot herhood of R
. R
. T r ai nm en v. J acks onvi l l e T erm i nal C o. , 394 U
. S. at380.

3
. Cl a i ms El e v e n , Twel v e , a n d Si x t e e n Ar e Pr e e mpt e d b yt h e RLA C l ai m s T w el ve and Si xt een a l l ege thatact i ons of A m er i can A i r l i nes i n negot i at i ng t he R e stru c tu r in g P a rticip a tio n A g re e m e n t ca u se d A P F A to b re a c h its c o n tra c tu a l d u ties to its
m ember s , s ee Com pl
. ¶¶ 304- 07, 325- 35, w hi l e C l ai m E l even a l l eges t hatA PFA br eac hed i t s contract w it h i t s m ember s i n t he cour s e of ne got i at i ng and r at i fy i ng t he R es t ructur i ngW e not e, w i t h r es pect t o pl ai nt i ffs ’ br eac h cl ai m agai ns tA PFA , t hatpl ai nt i ffs have 6 al l eged no i ndepende ntdut yow ed t hem i ndi vi dual l yundert he contr act . See U ni t ed S tee l w orkers of A m . v. R aw son, 49 5 U
. S
. 36 2, 37 4 ( 19 90 ) (“I f an em ploy ee cl ai m s t h a t a uni on ow es hi m a m or e far
- r eac hi ng dut y [than t he dut y of fai r r epr es ent at i on] , he m us tbe abl e t o poi ntt o l anguage i n t he col l ec ti v e-b ar gai ni ng agr eements peci fi cal l yi ndi cat i ng an i nt entt o cr eat e obl i gat i ons enfor cea bl e aga i ns tt he uni on by t he i ndi vi dual empl oy ees . ”) ; s ee a lso M a yv . S h u ttl e , In c ., 1 2 9 F .3 d 1 6 5 , 1 7 9 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (h o ld in g R L A d u tyo f f a ir re p re se n tatio n c laim p re e m p ts “ id e n tica l” s tate law c laim s o f f ra u d a n d d e c e it); N e lli s v . A ir L i ne Pi l ot s A s s ’ n, 15 F. 3d 50, 51 ( 4t h C i r . 1994) ( s ame) ; Pet er s on v. A i rL i ne Pi l ot s A s s ’ n, In t’l, 7 5 9 F .2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 7 0 (4 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (n o tin g th a t sta te la w to rt c laim s w e re “ e ss e n tially i dent i cal ” t o dut y o f fa irr epr es ent at i on cl ai m and ther efor e di s m i s s i ng s t at e cl ai m s as p re e m p te d b yR L A ). 23 Par t i ci pat i on A gr eement , s ee i d. ¶¶ 299- 303. T hes e cl ai m s ar e aki n t o t hos e di s cus s ed byt he T hi r d C i r cui ti n B ens el v. A l l i ed Pi l ot s ’ A s s oci at i on: [A ] l l i nvol ve al l eged i nt er fer ence w it h [pl ai nt i ffs ’ ] empl oym entr i ght s as es t abl i s hed byt he var i ous agr eement s t hatgo v ern t hei rw ages and other benef i t s as w el l as t hei r r i ght t o be fa i r l yr epr es ent ed under[§ 152]
. T hus t he

. . . r i ght s ati s s u e ar e founde d upon fede r al l aw , der i ve thei rs t r ength and pr ot ect i on fr om fede r al l aw , and exi s tt o eff ectuat e a na t i onw i de fe der al l abor p o l i c y. 3 8 7 F
. 3 d a t3 2 1
. S u c h c l a i ms mu s tr i s e o rf a l l b a s e d o n t h e i rme r i tu n d e rt h e RL A. 6 Par t i es w hos e conduc ti s governed b yt he R L A appr oach c ol l ect i ve bar gai ni ng
n e g o tiatio n s m in d f

u l o f th e in c e n tiv e s a n d p e n a lti e s s e t f o rth in th e A c t. A s in Ja c k so n v ill e T erm i nal , t he i m pos i t i on of addi t i onal s t at e r egul at i on on cor e R L A conductw oul d al t ert he bal ance s t ruck byC ongr es s i n t hi s reg ar d. See 394 U
. S. at381. “[T] he pot ent i al s for
c o n f lict, an d f

o r th e im p o sitio n o f

in c o n sis ten t sta te o b lig a tio n s, a r e sim p lyto o g re a t” to al l ow eac h s t at e t o r egul at e conduc tcentr al t o C ongr es s ’ s R L A goal s . I d. ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons24

o m itt e d ). T h is ta sk “ ‘c a n n o t b e lef t to th e law s o f

th e m a n yS tate s, f

o r i t w o u ld b e f

a tal to t he goal s of the A ct ’ i f conduc tw er e pr ohi bi t ed bys t at e l aw s ‘ even though i n fur t her ance of t he fe der al s cheme. T he nee ds of the s ubj ectm at t erm ani fes t l ycal l foru n ifo rm ity . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng I nt ernat i onal A s s ’ n of M achi ni s t s A FL
- C I O v. C ent . A i r l i nes , I nc. , 372 U
. S. 682, 691- 92 ( 1963) )
. W e ea s i l yconcl ude thatt he i m pos i t i on of addi t i onal s t at e l i abi l i t yon t he defe ndant s forconductdur i ng col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng negot i at i ons w oul d ups ett he “ba l ance of pow er ” es t abl i s hed byt he R L A , G ol den St at e Tra ns i tC orp. v. C i t yof Los A ngel es , 475 U .S . 6 0 8 , 6 1 9 (1 9 8 6 ), a n d “ f ru s tr a te e f

f e c tiv e im p le m e n t a t i o n o f th e [ A c t’ s ] p ro c e s s e s ,” B r ot herhood of R
. R
. T r ai nm en v. J acks onvi l l e Ter m i nal C o. , 394 U
. S. at380. Pl ai nt i ffs s ubm i t t hat t her e i s , i n fac t , “no conf l i ct ” betw een thei rs t at e comm on l aw cl ai m s and the R L A
. A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at 37. T he poi nt r equi r es l i t t l e di s cus s i on. I n G arm on, t he Supr eme C o u rtobs erved that , even i f appl i cat i on of s t at e l aw “i n a part i cul ars i tuat i on
w ill n o t, i n f

a c t, co n f lict w ith th e a c tiv e a ss e rtio n o f f e d e ra l au th o rity ,” th e sta te c laim is
nevert hel es s pr eempt ed bec aus e “tw o l aw - ma k i n g s o u r c e s ” ma yn otgovern l aborpol i cy . San D i ego B l dg. T r ades C ounci l , M i l l m en’ s U n ion , L ocal 2020 v. G arm on, 359 U
. S. at247. Si m i l ar l y , i n J acks onvi l l e T erm i nal , t he C our thel d the s t at e r egul at i on pr eempt ed not beca us e i t actual l yconfl i ct ed w i t h t he R L A , butbeca us e of the “pot ent i al s forconfl i ct ” that
wo u l d a r i s e i f

e a c h s t a t e we r e e n t i t l e d t o s e ti t s o wn s t a n d a r d
. 3 9 4 U. S
. a t3 8 1
. I n s u m,
a c tu a l c o n f

l i c ti s n o ta p r e r e q u i s i t e t o f i n d i n g a s t a t e c l a i m p r e e mp t e d b yt h e RL A.Pl ai nt i ffs cit e sever al non- R L A cas es t o s uppor tt hei rcontr aryar gum ent , none of 7 w hi ch i s r el evantt o ouranal y s i s . See, e. g. , Spr i et s m a v. M er curyM ar i ne, 537 U
. S. 51, 63 ( 2002) ( cons t rui ng t he expr es s pr eempt i on cl aus e of t he Feder al B oatSafetyA ctof 1971 and c on c l ud i ng t ha t i t do e s no t pr e e mpt c omm on l a w c l a i ms) ; M e dtr on i c , I nc . v. Lohr , 51 8 U. S. 47 0 , 495 ( 1996) ( cons t rui ng t he expr es s pr eempt i on pr ovi s i on of the M edi cal D evi ce A m endment s of 1976) ; Fr ei ght l i ner C orp. v. M yr i ck, 514 U
. S. 280, 289 ( 1995) ( cons t rui ng pr eempt i on pr ovi s i on of N at i onal T r aff i c and M ot orV ehi cl e Safe t yA ctof 1 9 6 6 and concl udi ng t hati tdi d notpr eemptcomm on l aw cl ai m on i s su e fo r w h i ch fe der al l aw p ro v id e d n o s ta n d a rd ). P l a i n t i f f s a l s o a r g u e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t he A PFA 8 co n sti tuti o n is no t enf

o rce ab le as a co n tr ac t. T h e c o u rth eld n o su ch thing
. Ind ee d , the c o u rt h a d n o n e e d to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e c o n stitu tio n w a s e n f o rc e a b le a s a c o n tra c t b e c a u se it di s m i s s ed the contr actcl ai m on a di ffe r entgr ound, i
. e. , t hat“[t ] he al l egat i ons underl y i ng plai nti ffs’ cl ai m for “breach of the union const i tuti on ” are, i n s ub st ance, i den t i cal t o th o se i n pl ai nt i ffs ’ D FR [duty of fai r r epr es ent at i on] cl ai m s ” and ar e t her efor e pre empt ed byt he R L A
. M ar coux v. A m . A i r l i nes , I nc. , - - - F. Supp. 2d -
- - , 2008 W L 2828599, at*26. B e c a u s e w e a f

f ir m o n th a t s a m e g ro u n d , w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s th e e n f o rc e a b ility is s u e . 25 Pl ai nt i ffs have f

ai l ed t o offe ranycompel l i ng ar gum entas t o w h y the i rs t at e l aw cl ai m s ar e notgoverned byt he w el l- sett led l i ne of pr ece dent s der i vi ng fr om G arm on and J acks onvi l l e Ter m i nal
. N orhave pl ai nt i ffs at t empt ed t o demonstr at e thatei t herof the 7
exce pt i ons r ecogni zed i n G arm on appl i es t o t hei r cl ai m s . A ccor di ngl y , w e concl ude thatt he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l ydi s m i s s ed C our t s E l even, T w elve , and Si xt een a s pr eempt ed byt he RL A. 8 D
. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ C l ai m of a Bre ach of t he D ut yof Fai rR epr es ent at i on Pl ai nt i ffs s ubm i t t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t err ed i n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm enti n favor of A PFA on t he cl ai m of a br eac h of the uni on’ s dut y of fai rr epr es ent at i on. W e di s agr ee.T h e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyid e n tifie d th is trip a rtite sta n d a rd a n d f a irly a p p lied it i n 9 t hor ough ly rev i ew i ng t he evi dence r el evantt o pl ai nt i ffs ’ fai rr epr es ent at i on cl ai m . See M a rcou x v. A m . A i rl i nes, Inc. , 20 08 W L 28 28 59 9, at *2 2-26. T hu s, t here i s n o m e rit to pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum en t thatt he aw ar d of s um m aryj udgm enton t hi s cl ai m w as i nfec t ed by appl i cat i on of an i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d. I n anyevent , w e r evi ew t he cha l l enged j udgm ent d e n o v o a n d c o n c l u d e f o ro u r s e l v e s t h a tj u d g me n twa s p r o p e r l y e n t e r e d i n f a v o ro f AP F A. 26 1
. Th e Dutyo f

Fa i rRe p r e s e n t a t i o n Und e rt h e RLA “The st atut or ydut yof fa i rr epr es ent at i on w as devel oped [i n t he 1940s] i n a s er i es of
cas es i nvol vi ng al l eged r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on by uni ons cert i fi ed as excl u sive b arga i ni ng rep rese n tat ives u n d er the R ail w ayL ab o r A ct. ” V ac a v . S ipes , 3 8 6 U
. S
. 1 7 1 , 1 7 7 (19 6 7 ). In th e se c a se s, th e S u p r e m e C o u rt ru led th a t “th e e x c lu siv e a g e n t’s s tatu to rya u th o rityto
r epr es ental l m em b ers o f a de s i gnat ed uni ti ncl udes a s t atut oryobl i gat i on t o s erve the in ter e sts o f

a ll m e m b e rs w ith o u t h o stilityo r d isc rim in a tio n to w a r d a n y , to e x e rc ise its di s cr et i on w i t h compl et e good fa i t h an d h o n esty , and t o avoi d arbi t r aryconduct
. ” I d. ; s ee R ameyv. D i s t . 141, I nt ’ l A s s ’ n of M achi ni s t s & A er os pace W or ker s , 378 F. 3d 269, 276 - 77 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). T h is “ tr iparti te s tand ard ” ap p li es to “‘c h all en g es leve led n o t o n lyat a u n ion ’s
c o n tr a c t a d m in is tr a tio n a n d e n f o rc e m e n t e f

f o rt s b u t a t its n e g o tia tio n a c tiv itie s a s w e ll,’ ” i.e ., to b o th “ m a

jo r” a n d “ m in o r” d isp u tes u n d e r th e R L A
. A ir L in e P ilo ts A ss ’n , In t’l v . O ’N e ill , 499 U
. S. 65, 77 ( 1991) ( quot i ng C om m uni cat i ons W or ker s v. B eck, 487 U
. S. 735, 743 (19 8 8 )). 9 T he Supr eme C our thas e m p has i zed thata court ’ s “s ubs t ant i ve exa m i nat i on of a
u n ion ’s pe rfo rm an ce [is] hig h lyd ef ere n ti al, rec o g n izi n g the w ide lati tud e tha t n e g o ti ators27

need for t he effect i ve perform ance of their bargai ning r espon si bil i t i es. ” A i r L in e P ilo ts A s s ’ n, I nt ’ l v. O ’ N ei l l , 499 U
. S. at 78. “For t hat r eas on, t he fi nal pr oduct of t he bar gai ni ng pr oces s m aycons t i tut e evi dence of a br eac h of dutyonl yi f i tcan be fai r l ychar act er i zed a s
s o farout s i de a w i de r ange of r eas onabl enes s t hati ti s w hol l yi r r at i onal orarbi t r ary . ” I d. (i nternal ci t at i on and qu otat i on m arks om i t t ed). T he r at i on al i t yof a u nion’s decis i on m ust b e e v alua ted “ in li g h t of b o th the fa cts an d the leg al cli m ate tha t con fro n ted th e n eg o ti ators
a tt h e t i m e t h e d e c i s i o n w a s m a d e . ” I d
. T o d e m o n s t r a t e “ b a d f a i t h ” r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b y a
u n io n , a p a rtym u st s h o w “ im p ro p e r in ten t, p u rp o se , o r m o tiv e .” S p e llac y v . A irline P ilo ts A s s ’ n- I nt ’ l , 156 F. 3d 120, 126 ( 2d C i r . 1998) ( obs ervi ng that“[b] ad fa i t h encompas s es fr aud, di s ho n e s t y , a n d o t h e r i n t e n t i o n a l l y mi s l e a d i n g c o n d u c t ” )
. Ev e n i f a p a r t y ma k e s s uch a
s how i ng, i t m us t fur t her demonst r at e a caus al connec t i on betw een t he uni on’ s m is conduct and the compl ai ned- of i nj ur y . I d.

2. P lai n t i ffs ’ Fai l ur e T o A dduce E vi dence of Irrati o n al or A rbit rary C onduct P lain tiff s p o in t to n u m e ro u s d e c isio n s ta k e n b y A P F A in its n e g o tiatio n s w ith A m er i can A i r l i nes t hatt heys ubm i tr ai s e tr iable issues of fa ctas t o t he i r r at i onal i t yand
a rb itrar in e ss o f th e u n io n ’s re p re se n tatio n . S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). W e c o n sid e r e a c h in tu rn a n d c o n c lu d e th a t p la in tif f s ’ a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. A tt he out s et , w e not e thatt he r ecor d i s r epl et e w i t h evi dence t hatA m er i can A i r l i nes
w as , i n fac t , i n di r e ec onom i c s t r ai t s att he t i m e t he par t i es ent er ed i nt o t he negot i at i ons t hat28

l ed t o t he R es t ructur i ng Par t i ci pat i on A gr eement . For exampl e, A m er i can A i r l i nes had a ne t l os s of $3. 5 bi l l i on i n 2002, and by2003 t he ai r l i ne w as exper i enci ng cas h l os s es of app roxi m at el y$5 m i l l i on per day
. F urther, t w o o f A m eri can A i rl i nes’ pr i m arycom peti t ors, U S A i r w ay s and U ni t ed A i r l i nes , had fi l ed forbankrupt cypr ot ect i on i n A ugus t2002 and D e c e m b e r2 0 0 2 , r e s p e c t i v e l y. T hes e ci r cumst ance s pr ecl ude anyr eas onabl e fa ct fi nderfr om concl udi ng t hatA PFA ent er ed i n to t he cha l l enged ne got i at i ons w i t h A m er i can A i r l i nes i r r at i onal l y , arbi t r ar i l y , ori n bad fa i t h. N orw i l l t he evi dence admi tan i nfer ence of arbi t r ar i nes s orbad fa i t h i n t he vot i ng pr ocedur es us ed b y A PFA i n s eeki ng m ember s hi p r at i fi cat i on of the R es t ructur i ng Par t i ci pat i on A gr eement . Pl ai nt i ffs t ake i s s ue w i t h t he uni on’ s us e of a t el ephoni c bal l ot i ng
s ervi ce pr ovi ded byA m er i can A i r li n es r athert han mai l
- i n bal l ot i ng, and w i t h t he us e of a pas s w or d s uppl i ed byA m er i can A i r l i nes t o m oni t or s uch bal l ot i ng. G i ven the t i m e- s ens i t i ve natur e of the ci r cumst ance s , A PFA ’ s r el i ance on t el ephoni c bal l ot i ng and i t s m oni t or i ng of th e v o te th ro u g h a w e b site e sta b lish e d b yA m e ric a n A irline s is in su f f icie n t, by its e lf

, to perm i ta fi ndi ng of bad f ai t h. Pl ai nt i ffs s ugges tt hata j ur ycoul d i nferA PFA ’ s b ad fai t h fr om i t s agr eementt o a
ra tific a tio n v o tin g d e a d lin e o f A p ril 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , tw o d a y s b e f o re A m e r ica n A irline s f iled its 10K for m r evea l i ng t he t erm s of a Spec i al E xecut i ve R et i r ementPl an. Pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed, ho w e ve r , t o a d d u c e a n ya d mi s s i bl e e vi de nc e s up po r t i ng t he i rc on c l us orya s s e r t i on t ha tA PFA offi ci al s knew of the r et i r ementpl an w hen theyagr eed t o t he vot i ng s chedul e. I ndeed,29

pl ai nt i ffs do notaddr es s t es t i m oni al evi dence t hat A PFA offi ci al s di d nothave a nynot i ce of th e re tir e m e n t p la n u n til it s p u b lic d is c lo s u re o n A p ri l 1 7
. T h is re c o rd is in su f f icie n t to d em o n str ate a g en u ine d ispu te of m aterial fa ct w arran ti n g tr ial
. S ee F ed
. R
. C iv. P. 56 (c). P lain tiff s f u rth e r su b m it th a t A P F A ’s d e c isio n s to e x ten d th e v o tin g d e a d lin e to A p ril 16 and t o perm i tm ember s t o change vot es w er e t aken i n b ad fai t h. O nce a gai n, pl ai nt i ffs
m ake a bal d as s er t i on – t hat “the pr i nci pal , or s ol e, r eas on A PFA di d s o w as t o r ever s e the [i ni t i al negat ive] out come, ” A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at42 – w i t houtpoi nt i ng t o anys uppor t i ng admi s s i b l e e v i d e n c e . I n f a c t , t h e r e c o r d e v i d e n c e d e mon s t r a t e s t h a t APFA s o u ght an ext ens i on t hr ough t he end of A pr i l t o pr ovi de i t s m em b ers w it h m or e t i m e t o cons i dert he ter m s o f th e R estruc turi n g P arti cipa ti o n A g ree m en t and to ac co m m o d ate c ertain m em b ers
w ho had had tr oubl e ca s t i ng vot es . I tw as A m er i can A i r l i nes t hatr efus ed t o agr ee t o s uch
a n e x ten sio n a n d , o n A p ril 1 5 , o f f e re d th e a ltern a tiv e o f o n e f u rth e r da y o f

v o tin g . T h e re is
no r ecor d evi dence t hat w oul d perm i ta fa ct fi ndert o i dent i fybad fa i t h i n A PFA ’ s acc ept ance of t he one- day ext ens i on. See gene r al l yPar kerv. C onnor s St eel C o. , 855 F. 2d 1510, 1521 ( 11 th C ir
. 1 9 8 8) ( fi ndi ng no br eac h of the dutyof fa i rr epr es ent at i on w her e uni on ur ged
r at ifi ca ti o n o f c o ll ec ti v e b arg ainin g ag ree m en t bec au se it“a cc u ratelyref lected it s negot i at i on
e f f o rt s w ith th e C o m p a n ya n d th e e c o n o m ic c ri s is in th e s te e l in d u s tr y ” ). L i ke the di s t r i ctcour t , w e also i dent i fyno r ecor d s uppor tforpl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m t hat A PFA act ed arbi t r ar i l yori n bad fa i t h i n fi nal i zi ng t he A pr i l 25, 2003 acc ept ance of a
m odi fi ed R es t ructur i ng Par t i ci pat i on A gr eement . Fol l ow i ng di s cl os ur e of the Speci al30

E xecut ive R et i r ementPl an, on A pr i l 22, 2003, A PFA det erm i ned thatt he R es t ructur i ng Par t i ci pat i on A gr eement w as no l onger val i d and w oul d have t o be putt o a r e- vot e. T he next day , a fou r- person co ng res si on al delegat i on m etw i t h v ari ou s A m eri can A i rlin e s o ffi ci al s, i ncl udi ng C E O D onal d C ar t y , A PFA head J ohn W ar d, and the hea ds of tw o ot heruni ons t hat had rat i fi ed the R estruc tu rin g P a rt i ci pati on A greem ent. A s a r esul tof those dis cussi on s, A m er i can A i r l i nes uni l at er all yacc eded t o s ever al A PFA demands, i ncl udi ng a one- y ear
r educt i on i n t he dur at i on of the Restructur i ng Par t i ci pat i on A gr eement , an opt i on fort he
u n io n to re o p e n th a t A g re e m e n t a f te r t h re e y e a rs , a n d a n “ A n n u a l I n c e n tiv e P ro g ra m .” Pl ai nt iffs d o n otdi s put e thatt hes e conc es s i ons benef i t t ed A PFA m ember s . A s a r es ul tof t hes e di s cus s i ons , A m er i can A i r l i nes C E O C ar t yal s o r es i gned. A PFA l eade r s m etw i t h t he new A m er i can A i r l i nes C E O , G er ar d A rpey , on A pr i l 24, 2003. T he uni on r eques t ed t hat t he ai r l i ne defer fi l i ng for bankrupt cy unt i l aft er t he r e- vot e, and i ts oughtan addi t i onal amend m en t to t he “unde r fl y ” pr ovi s i on of the R es t ructur i ng Par t i ci pat i on A gr eement . A m er i can A i r l i nes agr eed t o r emove the “unde r fl y ” pr ovi s i on and to su b stitu te a d if

f e re n t c o n c e ss io n o f e q u a l v a lu e in its p lac e , b u t it in f o rm e d A P F A th a t, i f it d id n o t f

in a lize th e R e stru c tu rin g P a rticip a tio n A g re e m e n t b y A p ril 2 5 , th e a irline w o u ld d e c lar e b a n k ru p tcy. T h e A P F A B o a rd o f D ire c to rs c o n sid e re d th is pr o p o sa l a n d , o n A p ril 25, fi nal i zed the agr eement . T hi s r ecor d pr ovi des no s uppor tforpl ai nt i ffs’ a s s er t i on t hat A P F A ’s a c tio n s w e re “ so f a r o u tsid e a w id e ra n g e o f re a so n a b len e ss ” a s to b e irra tio n a l. A ir L in e P ilo ts A s s ’n , In t’ l v . O ’N e ill, 4 9 9 U .S . a t 7 8 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).31

A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thats um m aryj udgm entw as appr opr i at el y ent er ed i n favor of A PFA on pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m of br eac h of the dutyof fa i rr epr es ent at i on. I I I . C oncl usi on T o sum m ari ze, w e con cl ud e as foll ow s: 1. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ R L A cl ai m s against A m er i can A i r l i nes pur s uantt o 45 U
. S. C
. § 152, F irst a n d S e v e n th w e re p ro p e rly d ism iss e d b e c a u se th o se p ro v isio n s d o n o t p ro v id e a p riv a te
ca u se o f a cti o n fo r an em p loy ee ag ains t an e m p loy er. 2. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s t at e l aw cl ai m s agai ns tA m er i can A i r l i nes and A PFA fo r bre ach of
con t ra c t an d int enti on al i nter ference w i t h co ntr actw ere pr op erl ydis m i ssed becau se these
s t a t e l a w c l a i ms a r e p r e e mp t e d b yt h e RL A. 3. Sum m ary j udgm ent w as pr oper l y ent er ed i n favorof A PFA on pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m of br eac h of the duty of fai rr epr es ent at i on beca us e pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o adduce evi dence r ai s i ng a col or abl e ques t i on of fa cton t he i s s ue of w heth er A P F A ’ s act i ons w er e s o farout s i de a
w i de r ange of r eas onabl enes s as t o be w hol l y i r r at i onal , arbi t r ary , or under t aken i n bad fa i t h. A ccordi ng l y , t he judgm ent of t he d i stri ctcou rti n fav or of d efen dan t s i s AF F I R MED .