FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T AUGUST 9, 2011

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 1 0- 14 90 5
Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D.C. Dock et No. 4 :0 9- cv -0 02 18 -RS- W CS

TROY G. AVE RA,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL,
AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION MAS TER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, UAL Corp or at io n a nd Uni te d Ai rli ne s, In c.,

Defen da nt s- App el le es ,

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

In te rv en or -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
(Au gu st 9, 2 01 1)Befo re EDMONDSON, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Pro ceed in g pr o se , Troy G. Ave ra su ed th e Airl in e Pi lo ts Ass oc ia t i o n ,

In te rn at io na l, an d th e Uni t e d A i rli ne s Mas te r Exe cu ti ve Co un ci l (co ll ect iv el y ,

“ ALPA”) fo r vi ol at io ns of th e Age Dis c r i mi n a t i on in Em pl oym en t Act of 19 67

(“ ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 62 1; th e Em pl oyee Ret ire m en t In co m e Secu rit y Act

(“ ERISA”)

, 29 U.S.C. § 11 01 ; an d fo r br each of th e du ty of fai r rep res en ta ti on un de r

th e Rai lway Lab or Act, 45 U.S.C. § 15 1, et se q. Ave ra al so pe ti ti on ed fo r a

de cl arat or y jud gm en t th at th e Fai r Treat m en t of Exp eri en ced Pi lo ts Act (“ FTEPA”),

49 U

. S .C. § 44 72 9, an d th e Fed eral Avi at io n Adm in is tra ti on ’s (“ FAA”) “ Age 60

Ru le ,” 14 C.F.R. § 12 1.3 83

, were un co ns ti tu ti on al

. Pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 24 03 (a),

th e Uni te d St at es in te rv en ed to de fen d th e co ns ti tu ti on al i t y o f t h e FTEPA. The

di st ri c t c o u r t di sm is se d th e ADEA, ERISA, an d co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s fo r fai lu re to

st at e a cl ai m

an d d is m is se d t he Rai lway Labo r Act cla im as b arre d b y

th e st at ut e o f

li m it at io ns

.

On ap pe al

, Ave ra arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by di sm is si ng hi s

c o m pl ai nt be cau se (1 ) th e FTEPA is un co ns ti tu ti on al an d co ul d no t sh ie ld A LP A

fro m li ab il it y on hi s cl ai m s, (2 ) he st at ed a cl ai m fo r vi ol at io ns of th e ADEA, ERISA,

an d th e Rai lway Lab or Act, an d (3 ) hi s cl ai m s un de r th e Rai lway Lab or Act were

2ti m el y un de r th e de la y ed -d is co ve ry do ct rin e. Ave ra al so ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s

di sm is sa l of hi s ch al le ng e to th e Age 60 Ru le

, bu t th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at th e

di st ric t c o u r t l a c k e d juri sd ic ti on ov er th is cl ai m

. Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, we ag ree

wit h th e go ve rn m en t, an d a f f i r m i n la rg e pa rt, bu t va cat e an d rem an d th e di st ric t

co ur t’s ru li ng on th e Age 60 Ru le

.

I.

“ The is su e of whe th er th e di s t r i c t c o ur t ha d su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er

[th e] com pl ai nt is a qu es ti on of l aw su bjec t to de no vo rev ie w.” Tam ia m i Pa rtn ers ,

Ltd

. ex rel

. Tam ia m i Dev

. Co rp

. v. Mi cco su ke e Trib e of In di an s o f F l a

. , 17 7 F.3 d

12 12

, 12 22 (1 1t h Cir. 19 99 ). “ The co ns ti tu ti on al it y of a st at ut e is a qu es ti on of la w

su bjec t to de no vo rev ie w.” Co op er v. Dil lo n, 40 3 F.3 d 12 08

, 12 13 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 )

(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ A d i st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m un de r

Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) is rev ie wed de no vo .” Alb ra v. Adv an , In c., 49 0 F.3d 82 6, 82 9 (11 th

Ci r. 20 07 ).

II.

As an in it ia l m at te r, th e Uni t e d St at es arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed

juri sd ic ti on ov er Ave ra’s ch al le ng e to th e Age 60 Ru le

. W e ha ve a sp eci al ob li ga ti on

to sa ti sf y ou rs el ve s no t on ly th at we ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er thi s app eal

, bu t als o th at

th e di st ric t co ur t ha d juri sd ic ti on ov er th e va rio us co un ts of th e co m pl ai nt

. Tam ia m i

3Part ne rs , 17 7 F.3 d at 12 21

. “ W he n th e lo wer fed eral co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on , we ha ve

juri sd ic ti on on ap pe al

, no t of th e m eri ts bu t m erel y fo r th e pu rp os e of co rrec ti ng th e

erro r of th e lo wer co ur t in en te r t a i n i n g t h e su it .” Id

. (al te rat io ns an d qu ot at io n

om it te d)

.

Pu rs ua nt to 49 U.S.C. § 4 61 10 (a):

a pe rs on di sc lo si ng a su bs ta nt ia l in te res t in an or de r i s s u e d by th e Secr et ary of Tran sp or ta ti on (o r

. . . th e Adm in is tra to r of th e F e d eral
Avi at io n Adm in is tra t i o n wit h res pe ct to av ia ti on du ti es an d po wers de si gn at ed to be carr ie d ou t by t h e A d mi n is tra to r) in who le or in pa rt

un de r th is pa rt [p ert ai ni ng to ai r co m m erce an d sa fet y ], [o r ] pa rt B [p ert ai ni ng to ai rp or t de ve lo pm en t an d no is e]

. . . m ay ap pl y fo r rev ie w of th e or de r by fil in g a pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w in th e Uni te d St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m b i a C i r cu it or in th e co ur t of ap pe al s of th e Uni te d St at es fo r th e ci rcu it in whi ch th e pe rs on res id es or ha s it s
pr in ci pa l pl ace of bu si ne ss

. The pe ti ti on m us t be fil ed no t lat er tha n 60
da y s aft er t h e or de r is is su ed

. The co ur t m ay al lo w th e pe ti ti on to be
fil ed aft er th e 60 th da y on ly if th ere are reas on ab le gr ou nd s fo r no t fil in g by the 60 th da y

.

49 U.S.C. § 46 11 0( a); se e al so Geo rg e Kab el le r, In c. v. Bu se y , 99 9 F.2 d 14 17

, 14 22

(1 1t h Ci r. 19 93 ). “ [T]he co ur t ha s ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on to affi rm , a m en d, m od ify,

o r se t as id e an y pa rt of th e or de r an d m ay or de r th e Secr et ary, Und er Secr et ary, or

Adm in is tra to r to co nd uc t fu rth er pr oc eed in gs .” 4 9 U

. S

. C

. § 46 11 0( c). The te rm

“ or de r” in th e st at ut e “ ha s be en gi ve n ex pa ns iv e in st ru ct io n.” Green v. Bran tl ey , 98 1

F.2 d 51 4, 51 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 93 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h th e is su e ha s no t ari se n

in th is Co ur t, th e D.C. Ci rcu it ha s st at ed th at th e st at ut e co ul d en co m pa ss “ di rect

4r e vi ew of reg ul at io ns pr om ul ga te d th ro ug h in fo rm al no ti ce-a nd -co m m en t

ru le m ak in g.” Ci ty of Ro ch es te r v. B on d, 6 03 F.2d 92 7, 93 3 n.2 6 (D.C. Ci r. 19 79 ).

“ W he re Co ng res s ha s p r o v i d e d in th e co ur ts of ap pe al s an ex cl us iv e fo ru m fo r th e

co rrec ti on of pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e ad m in is tra ti ve e r r o r s, a pl ai nt iff m ay no t

bypas s th at fo ru m by su in g fo r da m ag es in di st ric t co ur t.” Bran tl ey , 98 1 F.2 d at 52 1.

St at ed di ffer en tl y , th e di st ric t cou rt lac ks su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er “ an

im pe rm is si bl e co ll at eral ch al le ng e to [an ] ag en cy ord er.” Id

.

The FAA is ch arg ed wit h “ pr om ot [in g] sa fe fli gh t of ci vi l ai rcra ft in ai r

co m m erce by pr es cri bi ng

. . . reg ul at io ns in th e in te res t of sa fet y fo r th e m ax im um

ho ur s or pe rio ds of se rv ic e of ai rm en an d ot he r em pl oyees of ai r carr ie rs .” 49 U.S.C.

§ 44 70 1( a)(4 ). The FA A p r o m ul ga te d th e Age 60 Ru le in 19 59 pu rs ua nt to th is

m an da te

. The Ru le pr ov id ed th a t no pi lo t m ay se rv e as a pi lo t in op erat io ns of a

c o mm e r ci al ai rcra ft if th at pe rs on ha s reac he d hi s 60 th bi rth da y

. 14 C.F. R

. §

12 1.3 83 (c) (2 00 7)

.

In co un t fo ur of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt

, Ave ra so ug ht a de cl arat io n th at bo th

th e FTEPA an d th e Age 60 Ru le were un co ns ti tu ti on al bo th faci al ly and as ap pl ie d

to hi m

. Bu t as des cri be d abo ve , on ly th e co ur t of ap pe al s ha s ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on

to rev ie w a fin al or de r of th e FAA. Ave ra m ay no t bypas s ou r ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on

by pu rs ui ng in th e di st ric t co ur t a co ll at eral at ta ck on th e FAA’s or de rs

. See Bran tl ey ,

598 1 F.2 d at 52 1. Acco rd in gl y , we rem an d wit h in st ru ct io ns to va cat e th e di st ric t

co ur t’s or de r in pa rt an d to di sm is s fo r la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on Ave ra’s

co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es to th e Age 60 Ru le . See Tam ia m i, 1 77 F.3d at 1 22 1.

III.

Nex t, we reject Ave ra’s cl ai m s th at th e FTEPA vi ol at es th e Due Pro ces s an d

Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se s of th e Fi fth Am en dm en t, vi ol at es th e pr oh ib it io n ag ai ns t

bi ll s of at ta in de r, an d effe ct s an un co ns ti tu ti on al ta ki ng wit ho ut co m pe ns at io n. Pri or

to en act m en t of th e FTEPA, th e A g e 6 0 R ul e pr ov id ed th at no pe rs on co ul d fly a

co m m erci al ai rcra ft aft er hi s 60 th bi rth da y

. 14 C.F.R. § 12 1.3 83 (c) (2 00 7)

. Howev er,

se ct io n (d ) of th e FTEPA ex pr es sl y st at es th at

, aft er it s en act m en t, th e Age 60 Ru le

“ sh al l ceas e to be effe ct iv e.” 4 9 U.S.C. § 44 72 9( d)

. In st ead

, th e FTEPA pr ov id es

th at “ a p i l o t may se rv e in m ul ti crew co ve red op erat io ns un ti l at ta in in g 65 y ears of

ag e.” 49 U.S.C. § 44 72 9( a). On ap pe al

, Ave ra ch al le ng es two sp eci fic pr ov is io ns of

th e FTEPA: th e no n- ret ro act iv it y cl au se an d pr ot ect io n- fo r-co m pl ia nc e cl au se

. The

FTEPA’s no n- ret ro act iv it y pro vi si on pro vi de s:

No pe rs on who ha s at ta in ed 60 y ears of ag e be fo re th e da te of en act m en t of th is se ct io n m ay se rv e as a pi lo t fo r an ai r carr ie r en ga ge d in co ve red

op erat io ns un le ss --

(A) su ch pe rs on is in th e em pl oym en t of th at ai r carr ie r in s uc h

op erat io ns on su ch da te of en act m en t as a req ui red fli gh t de ck crew

m em be r; o r

6(B) su ch pe rs on is ne wly hi red by an ai r carr ie r as a pi lo t on or aft er su ch

da te of en act m en t wit ho ut cred it fo r pr io r se ni or it y or pr io r lo ng ev it y fo r be ne fit s or ot he r te rm s rel at ed to le ng th of se rv ic e pr io r t o th e da te of
reh ire un de r an y la bo r ag reem en t or em pl o ym e n t p ol ic ie s of th e ai r

carr ie r.

49 U.S.C. § 44 72 9( e)(1 ). The FTEPA al so in cl ud es a p r ot ect io n- fo r-co m pl ia nc e

pr ov is io n, wh ic h p ro vi de s:

An act io n ta ke n in co nf

or m an ce wit h th is se ct io n, ta ke n in co nf or m an ce wit h a reg ul at io n is su ed to carr y ou t th is se ct io n, o r ta ke n pr io r to th e da te of en act m en t of th is se ct io n in co nf or m an ce wit h [th e Age 60 Ru le ] (as in effe ct be fo re su ch da te of en act m en t), m ay no t se rv e as a ba si s fo r li ab il it y or rel ie f in a pr oc eed in g, br ou gh t un de r an y em pl oym en t la w or
reg ul at i o n , be fo re an y co ur t or ag en cy of th e Uni te d St at es or of an y St at e o r lo cal it y

.

49 U.S.C. § 4 47 29 (e)( 2)

.

The re is no m eri t to Ave ra’s cl ai m th a t t h e FTEPA vi ol at es th e Equ al

Pro te ct i o n Cl au se by ta rg et in g “ a sm al l as cert ai na bl e cl as s” of pi lo ts bo rn be twee n

19 42 an d 1 94 7 an d ex ti ng ui sh in g th at sm al l gr ou p’s “ pr op ert y rig ht s (wo rk

,

em pl oym en t, an d co nt ract rig ht s)

, whi le affo rd in g ev ery ot he r pe rs on in ev ery ot he r

pr of es si on

. . . th e pr ot ect io ns of th e ADEA.” The Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se req ui res

th e go ve rn m en t to tre at si m il arl y si tu at ed pe rs on s in a si m il ar m an ne r. Gary v. Cit y

o f Wa r ne r Ro bi ns , 31 1 F.3 d 13 34

, 13 37 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ). “ W he n le gi sl a t i o n

cl as si fie s pe rs on s in su ch a way th at th ey rece iv e d iff

eren t t reat m en t u nd er t he law,

th e de gr ee of sc ru ti ny th e co ur t ap pl ie s de pe nd s up on th e ba si s fo r th e cl as si fic at io n.”

7Id

. If a la w tre at s in di vi du al s di ffer en tl y on th e b a s i s o f race or an ot he r su sp ect

cl as si fic at io n, or if th e la w im pi ng e s on a fu nd am en ta l rig ht

, it is su bjec t to st ric t

sc ru ti ny. Eid e v . Saras ot a Co un ty, 90 8 F .2d 71 6, 7 22 (1 1t h Cir. 19 90 ). Oth erwi se ,

th e la w n eed on ly h a v e a rat io na l ba si s -- i.e., it ne ed on ly b e rat io na ll y rel at ed to a

le gi ti m at e g ov ern m en t p ur po se . Id.

Alt ho ug h cl as si fic at io ns ba se d on race or ge nd er rece iv e st ric t sc ru ti ny, “ [a]ge

cl as si fic at io ns

. . . can no t be ch arac te riz ed as ‘so se ld om rel ev an t to th e ach ie ve m en t

of an y le gi ti m at e st at e in te res t th at la ws gr ou nd ed in su ch co ns id erat io ns are de em ed

to refl ect pr ejud ic e an d an ti pa th y .’ ” Kim el v. Fl or id a Bd

. of Reg en ts , 5 28 U.S. 6 2,

83 ( 20 00 ). Acco rd in gl y , “ ag e is no t a su sp ect cl as si fic at io n un de r th e Equ al

Pro te ct io n Cl au se ,” an d a cl as si fic at io n ba se d on ag e rece iv es rat io na l-b as is rev ie w.

Id . at 8 3- 84

.

The rat io na l-b as is te st as ks (1 ) whe th er th e go ve rn m en t ha s th e p o w e r o r

au th or it y to reg ul at e th e pa rti cu la r area in qu es ti on , an d (2 ) whe th er th ere is a rat io na l

r e l a ti on sh ip be twee n th e go ve rn m en t’s ob jecti ve an d th e m ean s it ha s ch os en t o

ach ie ve it

. Leib v. Hil ls bo ro ug h Co un t y P ub li c Tran sp

. Co m m ’n, 55 8 F.3 d 13 01

,

13 06 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). Thi s st an da rd is eas il y m et

. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld

,

un de r rat io na l-b as is rev ie w, a st at e “ ha s no ob li ga ti on to pr od uc e ev id en ce to su st ai n

th e rat io na li ty of a st at ut or y cl as si fic at io n.” Hell er v. Doe by Doe

, 50 9 U.S. 31 2, 32 0

8(1 99 3)

. “ Rat he r, a st at ut e is pr es um ed co ns ti tu ti o n a l

, a n d t h e bu rd en is on th e on e

at ta ck in g th e la w to ne ga te ev ery co nc ei va bl e ba si s th at m ig ht su pp or t it

, ev en if th at

ba si s ha s no fo un da ti on in th e reco rd .” Leib

, 55 8 F.3 d at 13 06

. “ Und er rat io na l ba si s

rev ie w, a co ur t m

us t acce p t a l e g i s la tu re’s ge ne ral iz at io ns ev en whe n th ere is an

im pe rfec t fi t b et ween m ean s an d e nd s.” Id

.

The FTEPA co m

pl ie s wit h th e Eq u a l P ro te ct io n Cl au se

. Alt ho ug h Ave ra

ar g u e s t h a t th is Co ur t sh ou ld rev ie w th e FTEPA un de r th e st ric t-s cru ti ny st an da rd

,

ag e is no t a su sp ect cl as si fic at io n an d Ave ra id en ti fie s no fu nd am en ta l rig ht bu rd en ed

by th e FTEPA. App lying rat io na l-b as i s rev ie w, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s reject ed

eq ua l-p ro te ct io n ch al le ng e s to m an da to ry -ret ire m en t sc he m es

. See Greg or y v.

Ash cro ft, 50 1 U.S. 45 2 (1 99 1) (m an da to ry ret ire m en t at ag e 70 fo r st at e co ur t jud ge s

co m pl ie d wit h th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se ). Add it io na l ly, th e FTEPA’s

no n- re tro act iv it y pr ov is io n is rat io na ll y rel at ed to th e go ve rn m en t’s ob jecti ve of

av oi di ng di sh arm on y an d di sc or d in th e la bo r m ark et

. See Kim el

, 52 8 U.S. at 92 -9 3

(St ev en s, J., co nc ur rin g in pa rt an d di ss en ti ng in pa rt) (“ Co ng res s’ po wer to reg ul at e

th e Am eri can eco no m

y in cl ud es th e po wer to reg ul at e bo th th e pu bl ic an d th e pr iv at e

se ct or s of th e la bo r m ark et .”). Co ng res s co ul d rat io na ll y ha ve co nc lu de d th at

al lo win g al l ret ire d co m

m erci al pi lo ts be twee n th e ag es of 60 an d 65 to ret ur n to th ei r

pr io r po si ti on s wit h fu ll se ni or it y wou ld di sr up t th e ai rli ne pi l o t s ’ l ab or hi erar ch y

.

9Fi na ll y , th e FTEPA ’s pr ot ect io n- fo r-co m pl ia nc e pr ov is io n is rat io na l be cau se

Co ng res s m ay le gi ti m at el y se ek to m in im iz e a ny co nf li ct be twee n th e FTEPA an d

ot he r em pl oym en t la ws. Acco rd in gl y , th e FTEPA su rv iv es rat io na l-b as is rev ie w, an d

Ave ra’s eq ua l-p ro te ct io n c ha ll en ge fai ls

.

Nor is th ere an y m eri t to Ave ra’s cl ai m th at th e FTEPA vi ol at es th e Due

Pro ces s Cl au se be cau se th e Act’s no n- ret ro act iv it y pr ov is io n pr ev en te d hi m fro m

be in g re-e m

pl oyed at hi s fo rm er po si ti on an d de pr iv ed hi m of hi s lo n g e v i t y a n d

se ni or it y at hi s fo rm er ai rli ne , th e Act vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s by

pr ev en ti ng hi m fro m se ek in g rei ns ta te m en t at Uni te d Airl in es at hi s ol d po si ti on , an d

th e Act is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly vag ue . The Fi fth Am en dm en t pro vi de s th at no pe rs on

sh al l “ be de pr iv ed of li fe, li be rty, or pr op ert y , wit ho ut du e pr oc e s s of la w.” U.S.

Co ns t

. A men d V. The Due Pro ces s Cl au se pr ov id es “ two di ffer en t ki nd s of

co ns ti tu ti on al pr ot ect io n: pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s an d su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s.”

McKi nn ey v. Pat e, 20 F.3 d 15 50

, 15 55 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 94 ) (en ba nc ). “ The su bs ta nt iv e

co m po ne nt of th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se pr ot ect s t h o s e rig ht s th at are ‘fun da m en ta l,’

th at is

, rig ht s th at are ‘im pl ic it in th e co nc ep t of or de red li be rty.’ ” Id

. at 15 56

(q uo ti ng Pal ko v. Co nn ect ic ut , 30 2 U.S. 3 19 , 32 5 (1 93 7) ).

“ A fin di ng th at a rig ht m eri ts su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s pr ot ect io n m ean s th at th e

rig ht is pr ot ect ed ag ai ns t cert ai n go ve rn m en t act io ns reg ard le ss of th e fai rn es s of th e

10pr oc ed ur es us ed to im pl em en t t h e m.” I d

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Howev er, “ area s in

whi ch su bs ta nt iv e rig ht s are crea te d on ly by st at e la w (as is th e cas e wit h to rt la w an d

em pl oym en t la w) are no t su bjec t to su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s pr ot ect io n un de r th e Due

Pro ces s Cl au se be cau se su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht s a r e crea te d on ly by th e

Co ns ti tu ti on . Id. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

In an al y zi ng a pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s cl ai m , on th e ot he r ha nd

, we as k whe th er

th e pl ai nt iff id en ti fie d a pr op ert y in te res t of whi ch he was de p r iv ed by st at e act io n

an d, if so , whe th er th e pl ai nt iff rece iv ed su ffi ci en t pr oc es s reg ard in g th at de pr iv at io n.

Ro ss v. Cl ay to n C ou nt y , Ga., 17 3 F .3d 13 05 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Neve rth el es s,

[t]he Co ns ti tu ti o n d o e s no t req ui re al l pu bl ic act s to be do ne in to wn

m eet in g or an ass em

bl y of th e who le

. Gen eral st at ut es wit hi n th e st at e
po wer are pa ss ed th at affe ct th e pe rs on or pr op ert y of in di vi d ua ls

,
so m et im es to th e po in t of ru in

, wit ho ut gi vi ng th em a ch an ce to b e he ard

. The ir ri g h t s a r e pr ot ect ed in th e on ly way th at th ey can be in a

co m pl ex so ci et y , by th ei r po wer, im m ed ia te or rem ot e, ov er tho se who

m ak e th e ru le

.

Mi nn es ot a St at e Bd

. fo r Cm ty. Co ll eg es v. Kni gh t, 46 5 U.S. 27 1

, 2 8 4 (1 98 4)

(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Mo reo ve r, “ [d ]ue pr o c e s s r e q u ire s ‘tha t th e la w m us t be on e th at carr ie s an

un de rs ta nd ab le m ean in g wit h le ga l st a n d a rd s th at co ur ts m us t en fo rce.’” Harri s v.

Mex ic an Sp eci al ty Fo od s, In c., 56 4 F.3 d 1 3 0 1

, 13 10 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng

Giac ci o v. Pen ns y lv an ia

, 38 2 U.S. 39 9, 40 3 (1 96 6) ). “ The vo id -fo r-v ag ue ne ss

11do ct rin e refl ect s th e pr in ci pl e th at a st at ut e whi ch ei th er fo rb id s or req ui res th e do in g

of an act in te rm s so va gu e th at pe rs on s of co m m on in te ll ig en ce mu s t n e c es sa ril y

gu es s at it s m ean in g an d di ffer as to it s ap pl ic at io n, vi ol at es th e fir st es se nt ia l of du e

p r o c e s s of la w.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d br ack et s om it te d)

. “ The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

warn ed ag ai ns t t he m ech an ic al ap pl ic at io n of vag ue ne ss do ct rin e, em ph as iz in g th at

an ‘econ om ic reg ul at io n is su bjec t to a le ss st ric t va gu en es s te st ’ an d th ere sh ou ld be

‘great er to le ran ce of en act m en ts wit h ci vi l rat he r th an cri m in al pe na lt ie s be cau se th e

co ns eq ue nc es of im

pr eci si on are qu al it at iv el y le ss se ve re.’” Id

. at 13 10 -1 1 (q uo ti ng

Vil l. of Hof

fm an Es t a t es v. Fl ip si de

, Hof fm an Est at es , In c., 45 5 U.S. 48 9, 49 8- 99

(1 98 2) ).

To th e ex te nt Ave ra ch al le ng es th e FTEPA as vi ol at in g hi s rig ht to su bs ta nt iv e

du e pr oc es s, th e ch al le ng e fai ls b e c au se Ave ra id en ti fie d no fu nd am en ta l rig ht

bu rd en ed by an y of th e FTEPA’s pr ov is io ns an d be cau se , as de sc rib ed ab ov e, th e Act

su rv iv es rat io na l-b as is rev ie w. Ave ra’s pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s ch al le ng e al so fai ls

.

Eve n as su m in g th at th e FTEPA rev ok ed Ave ra’s pr op ert y in te res t in hi s se ni or it y at

Uni te d Airl in es (wh ic h in te res t Ave ra no lo ng er ha d be cau se h e w a s t e r m in at ed in

acco rd wit h th e Age 60 Ru le an d no lo ng er ha d an y ex pe ct at io n of fu tu re em pl oym en t

as a co m m erci al pi lo t), Co ng res s act ed rat io na ll y an d wit hi n it s po wer by en act in g th e

FTEPA an d t he refo re Av era’s ri gh ts were p ro te ct ed on ly by hi s p owe r, “ im m ed ia te

12or rem ot e, ov er th os e who m ak e th e ru le .” Kni gh t, 46 5 U.S. at 28 4. Fi na ll y , Ave ra’s

va gu en es s ch al le ng e fai ls be cau se th e FTEPA is un de rs ta nd ab le by pe rs on s of no rm al

in te ll ig en ce, an d Co ng res s ne ed no t de fin e e v e r y te rm in a st at ut e an d ne ed no t

de di cat e a fed eral ag en cy to in te rp ret each pro vi si on of a st at ut e.

W e li ke wis e reject Ave ra’s c l a im th at th e FTEPA is an un la wfu l bi ll of

at ta in d e r b e c au se th e Act si ng le s ou t an eas il y as cert ai na bl e gr ou p of co m m erci al

pi lo ts bo rn be twee n 19 42 an d 19 47 an d pu ni sh es th e gr ou p by de pr iv in g th e pi lo ts of

th ei r rig ht s un de r th e em

pl oym en t la ws an d th ei r rig ht s to ne go ti at e a ret ur n to wor k

an d to ne go ti at e be t t e r te rm s of em pl oym en t. The U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on pr ov id es th at

“ [n ]o Bi ll of Att ai nd er or ex po st fact o Law sh al l be pa ss ed .” U.S. Co ns t. art

. I, § 9,

cl

. 3. A bi ll of at ta in de r is “ a la w th at le gi sl at iv el y de te rm in es gu il t an d in fli ct s

pu ni sh m en t up on an id en ti fia bl e in di vi du al wit ho ut pr ov is io n of th e pr ot ect io ns of a

jud ic ia l tri al .” Nix on v. Adm in is tra to r of Gen

. Serv s., 43 3 U.S. 42 5, 46 8 (1 97 7)

. “ A

st at ut e in fli ct s co ns ti tu ti on al ly fo rb id de n pu ni sh m en t if (1 ) th e st at ut or y pe na lt y fal ls

wit hi n th e hi st or ic al m ean in g of le gi sl at iv e pu ni sh m en t, (2 ) th e st at ut e fai ls to fu rth er

a ny no np un it iv e le gi sl at iv e pu rp os e, or (3 ) th e le gi sl at iv e hi st or y es ta bl i s h e s a

co ng res si on al in te nt to pu ni sh .” W h i tn ey v. Heck le r, 78 0 F.2 d 96 3, 97 3 (1 1t h Ci r.

19 86 ).

13As ap pl ie d he re, ne it he r th e no n- ret ro act iv it y pr ov is io n no r th e pr ot ect io n- fo rco m pl ia nc e pr ov is io n in f

li ct s th e so rt of bu rd en “ hi st or ic al ly as so ci at ed wit h

pu ni sh m en t.” Sel ect iv e Serv

. Sy s. v. Mi nn

. Pu b. In te res t Res earc h Gro up , 46 8 U.S.

84 1, 85 3 (1 98 4) ). Alt ho ug h “ le gi sl at iv e ba rs to pa rti ci pa ti on by in di vi du al s or gr ou ps

in sp eci fic em

pl oym en ts or p r o f

e s s io ns ” m ay co ns ti tu te pu ni sh m en t, id . a t 85 2, th e

FTEPA’s no n- ret r o a ct iv it y pr ov is io n do es no t ba r Ave ra fro m wor ki ng as a

co m m erci al ai rli ne pi lo t. F ur th erm or e, th e FTEPA’s pr ot ect io n- fo r-co m pl ia nc e

pr ov is io n do es no t, by m erel y na rro win g th e sc op e of st at ut or y cau se s of act io n, de ny

Ave ra acce ss to th e co ur ts

. See Log an v. Zim m erm an Bru sh Co

., 45 5 U.S. 42 2, 43 2

(1 98 2) (“ [T]he St at e rem ai ns free to crea te su bs ta nt iv e de fen se s or im m un it ie s fo r us e

in ad jud ic at io n -- or to el im in at e it s st at ut or il y crea te d cau se s of act io n al to ge th er.”)

.

Alt h o u g h th es e pr ov is io ns res tri ct Ave ra’s ne w rig ht to fly un ti l th e ag e of 65

,

“ [f]orb id de n le gi sl at iv e pu ni sh m en t is no t in vo lv ed m erel y be cau se th e Act im po se s

bu rd en so m e co ns eq ue nc es .” Nix on , 43 3 U.S. at 47 2. Acco rd in gl y , th e FTEPA is no t

a b il l o f at ta in de r.

Nor do es th e FTEPA effe ct a “ ta ki ng ” wit ho ut jus t co m pe ns at io n. The Tak in gs

Cl au se in th e Fi fth Am en dm en t pr ov id e s t ha t “ pr iv at e pr op ert y [s ha ll no t] b e ta ke n

fo r pu bl ic us e, wit ho ut jus t co m pe ns at io n.” U.S. Co ns t. am en d. V. To st at e a ta ki ng s

cl ai m , “ a pl ai nt iff m

us t fir st de m on st rat e th at he po ss es se s a ‘pr op ert y in te res t’ th at

14is co ns ti tu ti o n a l l y p ro te ct ed .” Giv en s v. Alab am a Dep t of Co rrs ., 38 1 F.3 d 10 64

,

10 66 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). “ Th e Ta k i n gs Cl au se pr ot ect s pr iv at e pr op ert y ; it do es no t

c r e at e it .” Id

. The refo re, to de te rm in e whe th er a pa rti cu la r pr op ert y in te re s t i s

pr ot ect ed

, we lo ok to “ ex is ti ng ru le s or un de rs ta nd in gs th at st em fro m an in de pe nd en t

so ur ce su ch as st at e la w.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Howe v er, as de sc rib ed ab ov e,

Ave ra ha s no co ns ti tu ti on al ly p ro te ct ed pr op e r t y i n t e r es t in be in g reh ire d as a pi lo t

wit h h is for m er l ev el of s en io rit y . Accor di ng ly, Ave ra’s t ak in gs cla im fai ls

.

IV.

W e are als o un pe rs ua de d by Ave ra’s argu m en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t erred by

di sm is si ng hi s ADEA cl ai m be cau se hi s al le ga ti on s st at ed a pl au si bl e, pr im a faci e

cas e fo r rel ie f un de r th e ADEA. “ The ADEA m ak es it ‘unl awfu l fo r an em pl oyer to

fai l or refu se to hi re or to di sc ha rg e an y in di vi du al or ot he rwis e di sc riminat e ag ai ns t

an y in di vi du al wit h res pe ct to hi s co m pe ns at io n, te rm s, co nd it io ns , o r pr iv il eg es of

em pl oym en t, be cau se of su ch in di vi du al ’s ag e.’” Ch ap m an v. AI Tran sp or t, 22 9 F.3 d

10 12

, 10 24 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng 29 U.S.C. § 62 3( a)(1 )). The ADEA

al so pr ecl ud es a un io n fro m di sc riminat in g b as ed on ag e o r cau si ng an em pl oyer to

di sc riminat e ba se d on ag e. 29 U.S.C. § 6 2 3 ( c). Alt ho ug h a Tit le VII pl ai nt iff m ay

pr ov e hi s cas e by sh owi ng th at hi s m em be rs h i p i n a pr ot ect ed cl as s pl ay ed a

“ m ot iv at in g pa rt” in th e em pl oym en t de ci si on , a n ADEA p la in ti ff m us t “ pr ov e th at

15ag e was th e ‘but fo r’ cau se of th e em pl oyer’s ad ve rs e de ci si on

. Gro ss v. FBL Serv s.,

In c.,

__ U.S.

__ , 12 9 S. Ct

. 23 43

, 23 49 -5 0 (2 00 9)

. St at ed di ffer en tl y , th e ADEA do es

no t pe rm it a “ m ix ed -m ot iv e” cl ai m fo r di sp arat e tre at m en t. Mo ra v. Ja ck so n

Mem or ia l Fo un da ti on , Inc ., 59 7 F .3d 12 01 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y di sm is se d Ave ra’s ADEA cl ai m

. To th e

ex te nt Ave ra ch al le ng ed ALPA’ s act io ns in co nf or m an ce wit h th e Age 60 Ru le or th e

FTEPA, th e pr ot ect io n- fo r-co m pl ia nc e pr ov is io n ex pr es sl y ba rred hi s cl ai m

. See 49

U.S.C. § 44 72 9( e)(2 ) (“ An act io n ta ke n in co nf or m an ce wit h th is se ct io n

. . . [o r th e

Age 60 Ru le ] m ay no t se rv e as a ba si s fo r li ab il it y or rel ie f in a pr oc eed in g, br ou gh t

un de r an y em

pl oyme n t la w or reg ul at io n, be fo re an y co ur t or ag en cy of th e Uni te d

St at es or of an y St at e or lo cal it y .”). To th e ex te nt Ave ra arg ue s th at ALPA vi ol at ed

th e ADEA by lo bb y in g fo r th e FTE P A o r op po si ng ch an ge s to th e Age 60 Ru le

,

Ave ra fai ls to sp eci fy ho w th es e act s di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t Ave ra ba se d on hi s ag e.

Fi na ll y , Ave ra’s al le ga ti on s pe rta in in g to th e bo nd -p ro ceed s di st rib ut io n fo rm ul a fai l

be cau se Aver a co nc ed ed in th e co m pl ai nt th at ALPA us ed a fo rm ul a th at , “ be cau se

of th e Age 60 Ru le req ui rin g ‘earl y ’ ret ire m en t, res ul te d in y ou ng er Fl ig ht Offi cers

. . . wi th lev el s o f se ni or it y eq ua l o r co m

pa rab le to Pla in ti ff, rec ei vi ng su bs ta nt ia ll y

la rg er m on et ary di st rib ut io ns fro m th e sa le of th e UAL bo nd s th an th e di st rib ut io n of

$2 6,0 00 .00 rece iv ed by th e Pl ai nt iff .” In ot he r wor ds

, th e fo rm ul a’s al le ge dl y

16di sc riminat or y e f fect res ul te d fro m an ap pl ic at io n of th e Age 60 Ru le ’s m an da to ry

ret ire m en t an d no t fro m in vi di ou s ag e di sc rimi n a t i o n

. The refo re, Ave ra co ul d no t

es ta bl is h th at ag e was th e bu t-f or cau se of ALPA’ s di sc riminat io n, an d th e di st ric t

co ur t d id no t er r by di sm is si ng th e ADEA clai m . See Gro ss , 12 9 S .Ct. at 23 49 -5 0.

V.

W e li ke wis e fin d no m eri t in Ave ra’s arg um en t th at th e di s t r i c t co ur t

erro ne ou sl y di sm is se d hi s ERISA cl ai m

. ERISA go ve rn s on ly “ em pl oye e be ne fit

pl an s.” Fo rt Hali fax Pack in g Co

. v. Co y ne , 48 2 U.S. 1, 11 (1 98 7) (ERISA reg ul at es

em pl oyee be ne fit pl an s, no t em pl oyee b e n e f

i t s ) ; se e al so 29 U.S.C. § 10 02 (1 ).

Howev er, ERISA pr ov id es li tt le gu id an ce reg ard in g th e m ean in g of th e ph ras e

“ em pl oyee be ne fit pl an .” See Fo rt Hali fax

, 48 2 U.S. at 8- 9. Nev e r t h e l e s s , i n Fo rt

Hali fax

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at a Mai ne st at ut e req ui rin g lu m p- su m se ve ran ce

pa y m en ts to em

pl oyees di sp la ced by pl an t cl os ur es was no t an em pl oyee be ne fit pl an

.

Id

. at 12

. The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at ER I S A w a s n ot tri gg ered be cau se th e Mai ne

st at ut e crea te d no “ ne ed fo r an on go in g ad m in is tra ti ve pr og ram fo r pr oc es si ng cl ai m s

an d p ay in g b en efi ts .” Id

.

Here, t h e d i s tri ct co ur t co rrec tl y di sm is se d Ave ra’s ERISA cl ai m be cau se

Ave ra ne it he r id en ti fie d an ERISA pl an no r al le ge d an y fact s fro m whi ch th e di st ric t

co ur t co ul d in fer an ERISA v i o l a t io n. To th e ex te nt Ave ra arg ue s th at th e

17bo nd -p ro ceed s di st rib ut io n fo rm ul a vi ol at ed ERISA, th is cl ai m fai ls be cau se , as i n

Fo rt Hali fax

, th e di st rib ut io n co ns ti tu te d l u mp

- su m pa y m en ts th at req ui red no

on go in g ad m in is tra ti ve pr og ram fo r pr oc es si ng cl ai m s. A cc or din gly

, the dis tr ic t co ur t

pr op erl y di sm is se d t he ERISA cl ai m

.

VI.

Fi na ll y , we reject Ave ra’s arg um en ts th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by di sm is si ng

hi s cl ai m s fo r br each of th e du t y o f f ai r rep res en ta ti on (“ DFR”)

. The DFR is a

jud ic ia ll y de riv ed co ro lla

ry to the unio n’s st at ut or y st at us as th e em pl oyees’ co ll ect iv e

ba rg ai ni ng rep res en ta ti ve

. See Ai r Lin e Pi lo ts Ass ’n, I nt ’l v . O’Neil l, 49 9 U.S. 6 5,

75 -7 6 (1 99 1)

. A un io n owe s m em be rs a du ty to rep res en t th em ad eq ua te ly, ho ne st ly,

an d in go od fai th

. Id

. Howev er, be cau se a un io n ne ed s wid e la ti tu de to en su re

effe ct iv e pe rfo rm an ce of it s du ti es , ju d i ci al rev ie w o f un io n act io n m us t be “ hi gh ly

de fere nt ia l.” Id

. at 78

. Mo reo ve r, a un io n vi ol at es th e du ty of fai r rep res en ta ti on on ly

if it s act io ns are “ arb it rary, di sc riminat or y , or in ba d fai th .” Vaca v. Si pe s, 38 6 U.S.

17 1, 1 90 (19 67 ).

In th e in te res t of l a b o r rel at io ns st ab il it y , co ur ts ha ve ad op te d a sh or t,

si x- m on th st at ut e of li m it at io n fo r th e fil in g of DFR cl ai m s. Co pp ag e v. U.S. Po st al

Serv

., 28 1 F.3 d 12 00

, 12 04 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ); Sm al la ko ff v

. A i r Lin e Pi lo ts Ass ’n,

In t’l, 82 5 F.2 d 15 44

, 15 46 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 87 ). The li m it at io ns pe rio d be gi ns to ru n

18on ce th e pl ai nt iff di sc ov ers or sh ou ld ha ve di sc ov ered th e act s th at fo rm th e ba si s of

th e DFR cl ai m

. See Co pp ag e, 28 1 F.3 d at 12 05 -0 6 (s ix -m on th st at ut e of li m it at io ns

be ga n to ru n whe n em

pl oyee rece iv ed no ti ce of un fav or ab le se tt le men t a g reem en t

be twee n u ni on an d e m

pl oyer en di ng th e g rie va nc e p ro ces s)

.

In th i s c a se , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by di sm is si ng th e DFR cl ai m as

un ti m el y

. Alt ho ug h th e co m pl ai nt in cl ud ed few da te s, Ave ra was te rm in at ed in 20 07

,

an d al l of ALPA’ s lo bb y in g effo rts co nc ern in g th e FTEPA an d th e Age 60 Ru le m us t

ha ve oc cu rred be fo re th e FTEPA was en act ed in D e cem be r 20 07

. Fu rth erm or e,

al th ou gh Ave ra arg ue s th at hi s cl ai m was ti m el y un de r th e “ de la y ed di sc ov ery”

d o c t r in e be cau se he di d no t le arn of th e rel at iv e di st rib ut io ns of th e bo nd pr oc e e d s

un ti l Ju ne 20 09

, A v e r a a l l e ge d in hi s Octo be r 20 07 EEOC ch arg e th at ALPA

“ ne go ti at ed a fo rm

ul a fo r th e di st rib ut io n of th e pr oc eed s of th e UAL bo nd sa le whi ch

res ul te d in y ou ng er Fl ig ht Offi cers wit h le ve ls of se ni or it y co m pa rab le to m in e be in g

gi ve n a la rg er am ou nt of th e m on et ary di st rib ut io n from th is bo nd sa le fro m 2/ 06 to

2/ 07 .” Bec au se Ave ra di sc ov ered th e act s th at fo rm ed th e ba si s fo r th is cl ai m no la te r

th an Octo be r 20 07

, th e si x- m on th st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r hi s DFR cl ai m ex pi red by

Apr il 20 08

. Ave ra’s Ju ne 20 09 co m pl ai nt was th eref

or e un ti m el y wit h res pe ct to th e

DFR cl ai m

.

19As fo r Ave ra’s arg um en t th at he al so as se rte d a st at e la w c la im fo r br each of

“ fid uc ia ry du ty,” Ave ra fai le d to de ve lo p th is cl ai m in hi s co m p l a i n t

. B ut ev en

as su m in g th at th is cl ai m was ti m el y an d th at ALPA was a “ co nt ract ua l fid uc ia ry ” fo r

Ave ra, th is cl ai m wou ld fai l be c a u se ALPA was no t res po ns ib le fo r dr aft in g,

in te rp ret in g, ad m in is te rin g, or en fo rci ng an y of th e FTEPA’s pr ov is io ns , an d ALPA

ha s no t ad jud ic at ed it s li ab il it y fo r ad m in is te rin g th e st at ut e. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t err by di sm is si ng Ave ra’s DFR cl ai m or hi s cl ai m fo r br each of fid uc ia ry

du ty.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART WI TH

INST RUCTIO NS.

20