# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 19 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Jo hn A. W at so n, V,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt ,

v.

Air M et ho ds Co rp or at io n,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

10 , 20 17 Fil ed : Au gu st 31 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RILEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W OLLMAN, LOKEN, MELLOY, SMI TH, 1 COLLOTON, GRUENDER, BENTON, SHEPHERD, an d KEL LY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , En Ba nc

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1 St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10
, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Jo hn W at so n su ed hi s fo rm er em pl oyer, Air Met ho ds Co rp or at io n, in Mi ss ou ri

st at e c o u r t, al le gi ng a co m m on -la w cl ai m fo r wro ng fu l di sc ha rg e in vi ol at io n of

pu bl ic po li cy

. W at so n al le ge d th at he was a “ whi s t l eb lo wer” who di sc lo se d sa fet y vi ol at io ns at th e co m

pa ny, an d th at Air Met ho ds ret al ia te d ag ai ns t hi m by te rm in at in g hi s em pl oym en t. Air Met ho ds rem ov ed th e cas e to fed eral co ur t and th en m ov ed to
di sm is s ba se d on the pr e- em pt io n pr ov is io n of th e Airl in e Dereg ul at io n Act (“ ADA”),
49 U.S.C. § 41 71 3( b) (1 ). The di st ric t co ur t, rel y in g on ou r de ci si on in Bot z v. Omni
Air In te rn at io na l

, 28 6 F.3 d 48 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ), di sm is se d th e co m pl ai nt , an d W at so n
ap pe al s. W e no w ho ld th at th e ADA do es no t ex pr es sl y pr e-em pt W at so n’s st at e-l aw

wro ng fu l-d is ch arg e cl ai m s in vo lv in g po st ho c rep or ti ng of al le ge d vi ol at io ns of ai rsa fet y reg ul at io ns

.

I.

Air Met ho ds op erat es fli gh ts an d pr ov id es i n

- f l ig ht m ed ic al care fo r pa ti en ts
who req ui re em erg en cy ai r tra ns po rta ti on to ho sp it al s. The co m pa ny m ai nt ai ns a fle et
of 45 0 ai rcra ft an d qu al ifi es as an “ ai r c a r r i e r ” f o r pu rp os es of fed eral av ia ti on
reg ul at io ns . 49 U.S.C. § 4 01 02 (a)( 2)

.

Fro m Ju ly 20 13 un ti l May 20 14
, W at so n wor ke d as a fli gh t pa ram ed ic fo r Air
Met ho ds

. W at so n cl ai m s th at du rin g hi s em pl oym en t wit h Air Met ho ds

, he ob se rv ed

nu m ero us vi ol a t i o n s of fed eral av ia ti on sa fet y reg ul at io ns

. The se in cl ud ed a pi lo t

m ak in g cell -p ho ne vi de os du rin g fli gh t, m em be rs of a m ed ic al crew tex t m es sa gi ng du rin g cri ti cal ph as es of fli gh t, a pi lo t at te m pt in g to ta ke of

f de sp it e accu m

ul at io n of
fro st an d ic e on th e ai rcra ft, an d an ot he r pi lo t m ak in g un ne ces sa ry “ ru n- on la nd in gs .”
W a t so n rep or te d th es e al le ge d vi ol at io ns to Air Met ho ds ’s co rp or at e of fic e. He

as se rts th at t h e c o m

pa ny res po nd ed by su sp en di ng hi m an d la te r te rm in at in g hi s

em pl oym en t.

-2

-In Aug us t 20 14
, W at so n su ed Air Met ho ds in Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t fo r th e

co m m on -la w to rt of wro ng fu l di sc ha rg e in vi ol at io n of pub li c po li cy

. Und er Mi ss ou ri

co m m on la w, an em

pl oyer m ay no t te rm in at e an em pl oyee “ fo r rep or ti ng wro ng do in g

or vi ol at io ns of la w to su pe rio rs or pu bl ic au th or it ie s.” Fl e s hn er v. Pep os e Vis io n In st
., P.C.
, 30 4 S.W .3d 81
, 92 (Mo

. 20 10 ). Air Met ho ds rem ov ed th e cas e to fed eral

co ur t, in vo ki ng juri sd ic ti on ba se d on di ve rs it y of ci ti zen sh ip un de r 28 U.S.C. § 13 32

.

Air Met ho ds th en m ov ed to di sm is s th e co m pl ai nt on th e gr ou nd th at th e ADA

ex pr es sl y pr e-em

pt ed W at so n’s wro ng fu l di sc ha rg e cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d
th e m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at t h i s co ur t’s de ci si on in Bot z co nt ro ll ed th e is su e. On

ap pe al

, a pa ne l of th is co ur t li ke wis e co nc lu de d th at th e cas e was co nt ro ll ed by Bot z

an d affi rm ed

. W

at so n v. Air Met ho d

s C o r p

. , 83 4 F.3 d 89 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er

cu ria m ). W e th en gr an te d W at so n’s pe ti ti on fo r reh e a r i n g en ba nc to co ns id er whe th er Bot

z sh ou ld be reco ns id ered in rel ev an t pa rt. W he th er W at so n’s cl ai m is

ex pr es sl y pr e-em

pt ed by th e ADA is a qu es ti on of la w th a t w e r e v i e w de no vo

. Ku tt en v. Ban k o

f Am., N.A. , 53 0 F .3d 66 9, 6 70 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

II.

In 19 78 , C on gr es s pa ss ed th e ADA “ to en co ur ag e , d e ve lo p, an d at ta in an ai r
tra ns po rta t i on syste m whi ch rel ie s on co m pe ti ti ve m ark et fo rces to de te rm in e th e
qu al it y , va rie ty, an d pri ce of ai r se rv ic es .” Pu b. L. No. 95 -5 04
, 92 St at

. 17 05
, 17 05 (1 97 8)

. Befo re th e ADA, th e Ci vi l Aero na ut ic s Bo ard po ss es se d br oa d p owe r to

reg ul at e th e in te rs ta te ai rli ne in du st ry , in cl ud in g th e au th or it y to pr es cri be ro ut es an d
fare s. Fed eral Avi at io n Act of 19 58
, Pu b. L. No. 85 -7 26
, ti t. IV, 72 St at

. 73 1, 75 4- 71 (1 95 8) . The ADA lar ge ly dereg ul at ed do m es ti c ai r tra ns po rta ti on an d p ro vi de d fo r th e ev en tu al ter m in at io n o f th e Ci vi l Aer on au ti cs Bo ard . 92 Sta t. at 17 44 -5 4.

-3

-“ To en su re th at th e St at es wou ld no t un do fed eral de reg ul at io n wit h reg ul at io n

of th ei r own ,” Mor al es v. Tr an s Wor ld Air li ne s, In c. , 50 4 U.S. 37 4, 37 8 (19 92 ), th e ADA con ta in s an ex pr es s p re-e m pt io n c la us e, pr ov id in g i n re le va nt pa rt:

[A] St at e, po li ti cal su bd iv is io n of a St at e, or po li ti cal au th or it y of at le as t 2 St at es m ay no t e n a c t o r en fo rce a la w, r eg ul at io n, or ot he r pr ov is io n ha vi ng th e fo rce an d effe ct of la w re la te d to a pr ic e, ro ut e, or se rv ic e of

an ai r ca rr ie r

th at m ay pro vi de air tra ns po rta ti on un de r th is su bp art

.

49 U.S.C. § 4 17 13 (b )(1 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. The c la us e ap pl ie s t o s ta te st at ut es an d

st at e co m m on -la w cla im s. Nw., In c. v. Gin sb er g , 13 4 S . Ct. 1 42 2, 1 43 0 (2 01 4)

.

In Bot z , we co ns tru ed th e effe ct of th e ADA pr e- e mp t io n cl au se on a st at e whi st le bl owe r-p ro te ct io n la w. The re, a fli gh t at te nd an t refu se d to wor k bo th le gs of

an Alas ka -to -J ap an ro un d tri p be cau se sh e be li ev ed th e as si gn m en t vi ol at ed a fed eral

reg ul at io n co nc ern in g cab in c r e w membe rs ’ wor ki ng ho ur s. Bot z , 28 6 F.3 d at 49 0 (ci ti ng 14 C.F.R. § 12 1.4 67 (2 00 1) ). Sh e al so rep or te d to th e ai rli ne he r be li ef th at
th e refu se d as si gn m en t, an d a co m pa rab le as si gn m en t si x m on th s earl ie r, vi ol at ed th e
reg ul at io n. Id

. The ai rli ne fir ed th e fli gh t at te nd an t fo r in su bo rd in at io n an d refu si ng
to acce pt an as si gn m en t, an d sh e su ed un de r th e Mi nn es ot a whi st le bl owe r-p ro te ct io n
st at ut e. I d. at 49 0- 91

. The Mi nn es ot a la w pr oh ib it ed an em pl oyer fro m fir in g an

em pl oyee who “ in go o d f

a i t h

, rep or ts a vi ol at io n, su sp ect ed vi ol at io n, or pl an ne d
vi ol at io n” of fed eral or st at e la w, or who “ refu se s an em pl oyer’s or de r to pe rfo rm an
act io n th at th e em

pl oyee ha s an ob

jecti ve ba si s in fact to be li ev e vi ol at es an y st at e or fed eral law.” M in n. St at . § 1 81 .93 2, s ub d. 1 (1 ), (3 ).

In co nc lu di ng th at th e Mi nn es o t a s t a tu te “ rel at ed to

. . . se rv ic e of an ai r

carr ie r” wit hi n th e m ean in g of § 41 71 3( b) (1 ), th is co ur t fo cu se d fir st on th e
po te nt ia ll y di sr up ti ve effe ct of a crewm em be r refu si ng a wor k as si gn m en t. Bot z , 28 6
F.3 d at 49 4- 95

. Fed eral ai rli ne reg ul at io ns se t m in im um st affi ng req ui rem en ts fo r al l

-4

-c o mm e r c i a l fli gh ts , so a crewm em be r’s refu sa l to fly wil l us ua ll y fo rce an ai rli n e ei th er t o fi nd a la st -m in ut e rep la cem en t o r to can cel th e fli gh t. Id

. at 49 4. Be cau se

a cre wm em

be r’s refu sa l t o fl y

crea te s a “ si gn ifi can t li ke li ho od ” th at th e car rie r wil l
ha ve to can cel th at fli gh t, we co nc lu de d th at th e Mi nn es ot a st at ut e’s au th or iz at io n of

su ch refu sa l ha d “ a fo rb id de n co nn ect io n wit h an ai r carr ie r’s se rv ic e.” Id

. at 49 4- 95

. Thi s reas on in g was su ffi ci en t to d e mon st rat e pr e-em pt io n of th e fli gh t at te nd an t’s
whi st le bl owe r cl ai m

ba se d o n h er re fu sa l t o wo rk a sc he du le d s hi ft.

In ad dr es si ng th e fl ig ht att en da nt ’s s ep arat e cl ai m of ret al ia ti on ba se d on he r

po st ho c rep or t o f a n a l l eg ed sa fet y vi ol at io n si x m on th s earl ie r, th e Bot z pa ne l

ex pl ai ne d th at it s an al y si s of th e ADA’ s pr e-em pt iv e effe ct was “ bo l s t e red by” th e W hi st le bl owe r Pro te ct io n Pro gr am of th e W en de ll H. Fo rd Avi at io n In ve st m en t an d
Refo rm Act fo r th e 21 st Cen tu ry (“ W PP”)

, 49 U.S.C. § 4 2 1 2 1. 28 6 F.3 d at 49 7.
Ena ct ed in 20 00 , th e WPP am en de d th e ADA to crea te what th is co ur t d es cri be d a s

a “ si ng l e , u n ifo rm sc he m e fo r res po nd in g to ai r-ca rri er em pl oyees’ rep or ts of
ai r-s afet y vi ol at io ns .” Id

. Und er th e W PP, su ch co m pl ai nt s are to be ad

jud ic at ed by
th e Secr et ary of Lab or

. The Bot z pa ne l th ou gh t th e W PP’s pr ot ect io ns “ il lu st rat e th e types of c la im s C on gr es s i nt en de d t he ADA to p re-e m pt .” Id

.

Alt ho ug h th e W PP do es no t co nt ai n a pr e-em pt io n pr ov is io n, Bot

z co nc lu de d
th at th e en act m en t in fo rm ed th e sc op e of pr e-em pt i on un de r th e ADA. The co ur t

reas on ed th at Co n g res s, pr es um ab ly aware of th e br oa d pr e-em pt iv e sc op e of § 41 71 3( b) (1 ), wou ld ha ve “ di rect ed la ng ua ge in th e W PP to th e is su e of fed eral pr eem pt io n on ly if it ha d be en Co ng res s’s in te nt th at th e W PP no t ex ert an y pr e-em pt iv e effe ct up on st at e w h i s t l e b l owe r pr ov is io ns .” Id

. “ In fas hi on in g a si ng le

, un ifo rm
st an da rd f

o r d e al in g wit h em

pl oyee co m

pl ai nt s of ai r-s afet y vi ol at io ns ,” th e co ur t

sa id

, “ Co ng res s fu rth ered it s go al of en su rin g th at th e pr ic e, av ai la bi li ty, a nd
effi ci en cy of ai r tra ns p or ta ti on rel y pr im ari ly up on m ark et fo rces an d co m pe ti ti on
rat he r th an al l o w i n g t h em to be de te rm in ed by frag m en te d an d in co ns is te nt st at e
reg ul at io n.” Id

.

-5

-The co ur t th us co nc lu de d th at th e W PP was “ po werfu l ev id en ce of Co ng res s’s

cl ear an d m an ife st in te nt to pr e-em pt st at e-l aw whi st le bl owe r cl ai m s rel at ed to ai r

sa fet y ” th ro ug h th e ADA, id

. at 49 6, an d th at th e W PP di sp el le d “ wha te ve r d o ub t

m ig ht po ss ib ly li ng er aft er a p l ai n- la ng ua ge an al y si s of th e ADA’ s pr e-em pt io n
pr ov is io n.” Id

. a t 4 9 8

. Fo r th es e reas on s, th e co ur t he ld th at th e pl ai nt iff ’s cl ai m in vo lv in g he r po st ho c rep or t of a s a f e t y v i o la ti on was al so pr e-em pt ed

. The Bot

z
pa ne l de ci de d th e cas e ba se d st ric tl y on ex pr es s pr e-em pt io n un de r th e ADA, an d
fo un d “ no ne ed to co ns id er [th e ai rli ne ’s] im pl i e d p re-e m

pt io n arg um en ts .” Id

. at
49 3.

Bot z was th e fir st fed eral ap pe ll at e d e c i s i o n on ex pr es s pr e-em pt io n of
whi st le bl owe r cl ai m s. Si nc e th e n , th e Thi rd

, Nin th

, an d Elev en th Ci rcu it s each reject ed Bot

z ’s vi ew th at th e ADA ex pr es sl y pre -em pt s wh is tl eb lo wer cl ai m s b as ed

on po st ho c ai r-s afet y rep or ts

. Ven tr es s v. Ja pa n Air li ne s , 60 3 F.3 d 67 6, 68 3 (9 th Ci r. 20 10 ); Gar

y v. Air Grp

., In c. , 39 7 F.3 d 1 8 3
, 1 8 9 -9 0 (3 d Ci r. 20 05 ); Bra nc he v. Air tr an Air wa

ys , In c. , 34 2 F.3 d 12 48
, 12 58 -6 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ). In pa rti cu la r, th es e ci rcu it s ob se rv ed th at th e W PP di d no t ch a ng e “ th e la ng ua ge of th e ADA’ s pr eem pt i o n p r o vi si on in an y m ean in gf ul way ,” an d di sa gr eed wit h Bot z th at th e W PP

was pr ob at iv e of Co ng res s’s in te nt to pr e-em pt st at e la ws. Ven tr es s , 60 3 F.3 d at 68 3 ( q u o ti ng Bra nc he

, 34 2 F.3 d at 12 64 ); Gar y , 39 7 F.3 d at 19 0. W e no w co ns id e r whe th er t he co nf

li ct be twee n t hi s ci rcu it an d t he ot he rs sh ou ld pe rs is t.

III.

W at so n’s st at e-l aw cl ai m f o r wro ng fu l di sc ha rg e is pr em is ed on al le ge d

ret al ia ti on by Ai r Met ho ds fo r a po st ho c r e p or t of a sa fet y vi ol at io n. Air Met ho ds

co nt en ds th at W at so n’s Mi ss ou ri co m m on -la w cl ai m fo r wro ng f u l di sc ha rg e is

ex pr es sl y pr e-em

pt ed as a pr ov is io n “ rel at ed to a p r i c e , ro ut e, or se rv ic e of an ai r

carr ie r.” In de te rm in in g th e m ean in g of an ex pr es s pr e-em pt io n pr ov is io n, we ap pl y

no pr es um

pt io n ag ai ns t pr e-em

pt io n, an d we “ fo cu s on th e pl ai n wor di ng of th e

-6

-c l a u s e , whi ch ne ces sa ril y co nt ai ns th e be st ev id en ce of Co ng res s’ pr e-em pt iv e in te nt .” Pue rt o Rico v

. Fra nk li n Ca l. Ta x-Fr ee Tr

. , 13 6 S. Ct

. 19 38
, 19 46 (2 01 6) (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

A s o t h e rs ha ve ob se rv ed

, ho wev er, th e te xt of th e ADA pr ov is io n is “ hi g h l y el as ti c an d so of li m it ed he lp .” DiFi or e v. Am. Air li ne s, In c. , 64 6 F.3 d 81
, 86 (1 st Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. We k n o w fro m Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on s th at th e pr eem pt io n cl au se co ve rs st at e la ws “ ha vi ng a co nn ect io n wit h or refe ren ce to ai rli ne ‘rates
, ro ut es , or se rv ic es .’ ” Mor al es , 50 4 U.S. at 38 4. The st at ut e pr e-em pt s bo th

st at e la ws sp eci fic al ly ad dr es se d to th e ai rli ne in du st ry an d ge ne ral ly ap pl ic ab le la ws th at in di rect ly rel at e to ai r carr ie rs ’ rat es , ro ut es , or se rv ic es

. Id

. at 38 6. At th e sa m e ti m e, ho wev er, so m e st at e act io ns m ay affe ct pr ic es , ro ut es , or se rv ic e s “i n t o o
te n u o u s , r e mote , or pe rip he ral a m an ne r to ha ve pr e-em pt iv e effe ct .” Id

. at 39 0 (in te r na l qu ot at io n om it te d)

. “ [T]he st at e la ws who se ‘effect ’ is ‘forb id de n’ un de r fed eral la w are th os e wit h a ‘ si gn if ic an t im pa ct ’ on carr ie r rat es , ro ut es , or se rv ic es .”
Row e v. N.H. Mot or Tr an sp

. Ass ’n
, 55 2 U.S. 36 4, 37 5 (2 00 8) (q uo ti ng Mor al es , 50 4
U.S. at 3 88 , 39 0) ). 2

Air Met ho ds arg ue s th at W at so n’s wro ng fu l-d is ch arg e cl ai m i s rel at ed to
“serv ic e” of an ai r carr ie r. The re is di sa gr eem en t ab ou t th e m ean in g of “ se r v i c e

. ”
So m e co ur ts sa y th at it refe rs on ly to “ su ch th in gs as th e freq ue nc y an d sc he du li ng of

tra ns po rta ti on , an d to th e se le ct io n of m ark et s to or fro m whi c h t r a ns po rta ti on is

pr ov id ed ,” Ch ar as v. Tr an s W or ld Air li ne s, In c. , 1 6 0 F

. 3d 12 59
, 12 65 -6 6 (9 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (en ba nc ), whi le ot he rs co ns tru e th e t e r m mo r e br oa dl y to m ean el em en ts of

T he Fe de ra l A via ti on Adm inistr at ion A uth or iz at ion A ct (“ FA A A A ”) ex pr es sly 2
pr e-em pt s s t a t e la ws “ rel at ed to a pr ic e, ro ut e, or se rv ic e of an y m ot or carr ie r.” 49 U

. S

. C

. § 1 45 01 (c)( 1)

. The Co ur t in Row e ap pl ie d Mor al es in ex am in in g FAAAA
pr e-em pt io n, 55 2 U.S. at 37 0, an d Row e an d ot he r FAAAA cas es are ap pl ic ab le to ou r in te rp ret at io n of th e ADA’ s pr e-em pt io n cl au se

. Se e Dat a Mfg

., In c. v. Uni te d Par cel Se rv ., Inc

. , 55 7 F .3d 84 9, 8 53 n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.
-7

-“ th e co nt ract ua l arra ng em en t be twee n th e ai rli ne an d th e us er o f th e se rv ic e,”

in cl ud in g— in th e co nt ex t of co m m erci al ai rli ne s— “ it em s su ch as ti ck et in g, bo ard in g
pr oc ed ur es , pr ov is io n of fo od an d d r i n k

, an d ba gg ag e ha nd li ng , in ad di ti on to th e
tra ns po rta ti on it se lf.” Hod ge s v. Delt a Air li ne s, In c. , 44 F.3 d 33 4, 33 6 (5 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ; se e Air Tr an sp

. Ass ’n of Am., In c. v. Cu omo , 52 0 F.3 d
21 8, 22 3 (2d Ci r. 20 08 ) (p er curi am ) (co m pa rin g cas es ). Co ns is te nt wit h Ameri ca n Air li ne s, In c. v. W

ol en s , 51 3 U.S. 21 9, 22 6 ( 1 9 9 5 )

, whi ch co nc lu de d th at a
pa ss en ge r’s cl ai m rel at ed to up gr ad in g tra ve l cl as se s was rel at ed to “ se rv ic e,” we wil l

as su m e fo r th e sa ke of an al y si s th at th e br oa de r m ean in g is co rrec t— th e co nt ract ua l

arra ng em en t b et ween th e ai r car rie r an d t he us er o f th e se rv ic e.

Air Met ho ds

, ci ti ng Mar

gi ot ta v. Ch ri st ia n Hos

pi ta l No rt he as t No rt hw es t , 31 5
S.W .3d 34 2, 34 7- 48 (Mo

. 20 10 ), arg ue s th at to su ccee d on a Mi ss ou ri wro ng fu ldi sc ha rg e cl ai m , a pl ai nt iff m us t pr ov e th at he rep or te d an act ua l vi ol at io n of fed eral
ai r-s afet y reg ul at io ns

. The co m pa ny co nt en ds th at if th es e cl ai m s are no t pr e-em pt ed

, th en st at e co ur ts wil l ne ed to ad jud ic at e th e m ean in g of th e fed eral reg ul at io ns an d
de te rm in e whe th er p a rti cu la r co nd uc t of an ai r carr ie r’s em pl oyees vi ol at ed th e
reg ul at io ns

. Fo r ex am

pl e, in W at so n’s cas e, a co ur t m ig ht ha ve to ru le on whe th er

an ai rli ne pi l o t ’s r eco rd in g of a cel l-p ho ne vi de o du rin g fli gh t vi ol at ed fed eral

reg ul at io ns , su ch th at W at so n was te rm in at ed fo r rep or ti ng a vi ol at io n of fed eral la w. The co m pa n y r e a s on s th at be cau se a st at e co ur t’s ru li ng co ul d affe ct ho w th e ai r

carr ie r pe rfo rm s it s se rv ic es , a wro ng fu l

- d i s c h arg e cl ai m reg ard in g ai r sa fet y is

“ rel at ed to a

. . . se rv ic e of an ai r carr ie r” an d exp res sl y pr e-em pt ed un de r th e ADA.

Fo r se ve ral reas on s, we th in k th at an y effe ct of M is so ur i wro ng fu l-d is ch arg e cl ai m s on th e co nt ract ua l arra ng em en t be twee n an ai r carr ie r an d th e us er of it s

se rv ic e is to o te nu ou s, rem ot e, or pe rip he ral to de em th e cl ai m s ex pr es sl y pr e-em pt ed by th e ADA. Fi rs t, if a pl ai nt iff su ccee ds in a st at e wro ng fu l -d is ch arg e act io n, th e

co ur t do es no t or de r th e de fen da nt ai r carr ie r to m od ify it s sa fet y pr act ic es

. The st at e

co m m on la w pr ev en ts an ai r carr ie r fro m te rm in at in g an em pl oyee fo r rep or ti ng a

-8

-vi ol at io n of sa fet y ru le s. Bu t t h e ai r carr ie r is no t req ui red to im pl em en t an y

su bs id ia ry

co nc lu si on of a st at e co ur t ab ou t t he m ean in g o f sa fet y reg ul at io ns . The

req ui rem en t to ret ai n em

pl oyees who co m

pl ai n ab ou t pr act ic es de em ed un la wfu l by

a st at e co ur t do es no t si gn ifi can tl y im pa ct th e co nt ract ua l se rv ic e re la tio nshi p betwee n
t h e a i r carr ie r an d it s cu st om ers , ev en if th e carr ie r tu rn s ou t to be co rrec t t h a t t h e

co m pl ai ne d- of

pra ct ic e is pe rm it te d b y

fed eral saf

et y reg ul at io ns

.

Seco nd

, th e whi st le bl owe r’s po st ho c co m pl a i n t i t se lf is no t li ke ly to affe ct
si gn ifi can tl y an ai r carr ie r’s se rv ic es

. As an ot he r c o u r t ap tl y no te d, th e li ke ly

co ns e q u e n c e of rep or ti ng an al le ge d sa fet y vi ol at io n is an in ve st ig at io n by FAA

sa fet y of fic ia ls

, no t th e gr ou nd in g of fli gh ts , so th e co nn ect io n to an y “ se rv ic e” is to o

rem ot e an d at te nu at ed to fal l w i t h i n th e sc op e of th e ADA’ s pr e-em pt io n cl au se

. Bra nc he

, 34 2 F.3 d at 12 63 ; se e al so Ven tr es s , 60 3 F.3 d at 68 3; Gar y , 39 7 F.3 d at 18 9.
To be su re, th e ADA pr e-em pt s so m e st at e la ws th at ha ve an “ in di rect ” effe ct on ai rcarr ie r se rv ic es , Mor al es , 50 4 U.S. at 38 6, bu t th is do es no t m ean th at th e st ren gt h or im m ed ia cy of th e effe ct is irr el ev an t. At so m e po in t, th e effe ct of a st at e act io n on a

se rv ic e is bo th in di rect an d to o rem ot e or in si gn if i c a n t t o warra nt pr e-em

pt io n. Id

. at 39 0; cf

. N.Y

. St at e Co nf

er en ce of Blu e Cr os s & Blu e Sh ie ld Pla ns v. Tr av el er s In s. Co

. , 51 4 U.S. 6 45 , 66 8 (1 99 5)

.

Thi rd

, a wro ng fu l-d is ch arg e cl ai m is ak in to cl ai m s ari si ng un de r ba ck gr ou nd

em pl oym en t la ws th at are no t ex pr es sl y pr e-em pt ed by th e ADA. Laws reg ul at in g

m in im um wag es , w o r k e r s a f

e ty, an d di sc riminat io n ba se d on race , se x, or ag e m ay affe ct a carr ie r’s co st s, bu t th ey ge ne ral ly op erat e at a le ve l “ on e or m or e st ep s away fro m th e m om en t at whi ch th e fir m of fers it s cu st om er a s e rv ic e fo r a pa rti cu la r
pr ic e.” S

. C

. J

o h n s o n & So n, In c. v. Tr an sp

. Co rp

. of Am., In c. , 69 7 F.3 d 54 4, 55 8 (7 th Ci r. 20 12 ); se e Dil ts v. Pen sk e Lo gi st ic s, LLC
, 76 9 F.3 d 63 7, 64 6 (9 th Ci r. 20 14 );
DiFi or e , 64 6 F .3d at 8 7- 88 . Becau se ADA exp res s p re-e m pt io n a pp li es on ly wh en th ere is a “ si gn ifi can t” im pa ct on se rv ic e, th ere is a ge ne ral di st in ct io n be twee n st at e la ws th at reg ul at e “ ho w [a] se rv ic e is pe rfo rm ed (p reem pt ed ) an d th os e th at reg ul at e

-9

-ho w an ai rli ne be ha ve s as an em pl oyer or pr op rie to r (n ot pr eem pt ed ).” To bi n v. Fed

. Exp re ss Co rp

. , 77 5 F.3 d 44 8, 45 6 (1 st Ci r. 20 14 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n om it te d) ; se e Co st el lo v. Bea vEx, In c. , 81 0 F.3 d 10 45
, 10 55 (7 th Ci r. 20 16 ).
Laws o f ge ne ral ap pl ic ab il it y can be pre -em

pt ed by the ADA, Mor al es , 50 4 U.S. at
38 6, bu t th e pr e-em

pt io n cl au se sh ou ld be un de rs to od in li gh t of it s pu rp os e to

pr om ot e co m

pe ti ti on in th e in du st ry. S

. C

. Jo hn so n , 69 7 F.3 d at 55 9. A
whi st le bl owe r’s wro ng fu l-d is ch arg e cl ai m —l ik e a cl ai m al le gi ng race or ag e di sc riminat io n— do es no t frus tra te th e ADA’ s pr im ary eco no m ic ob jecti ve s. Abd

uBri ss on v. Delt a Air li ne s, In c. , 12 8 F.3 d 77
, 84 (2 d Ci r. 19 97 ); se e W el lo ns v. Nw.
Air li ne s, In c. , 16 5 F .3d 49 3, 4 96 (6t h C ir. 1 99 9)

.

Fo ur th

, Air Met ho ds rai se s co nc ern ab ou t a su pp os ed “ pa tc hwo rk ” sc he m e of

sa fet y st an da rd s th at wou ld res ul t from st at e to rt dec is io ns , bu t th e arg um en t fa lt ers

on th e p eri ph eral co nn ect io n be twee n wro ng fu l-d is ch arg e li ti ga ti on an d ai r-ca rri er

se rv ic e. Laws rel at ed to “ sa fet y ” are no t syno nym ou s wit h la ws rel at ed to “ se rv ic e.”
It is un li ke ly, fo r ex am

pl e, th at al l pe rs on al -in

jury cl ai m s ag ai ns t ai r carr ie rs ba se d on

un sa fe op erat io ns or m ai nt en an ce ar e ex pr es sl y pre -em pt ed by the ADA, gi ve n th at
fed eral la w req ui res carr ie rs to m ai nta in in su ran ce fo r bo di ly in jury, de at h, or pr op ert y da m ag es res ul t i n g f

r o m “ th e op erat io n or m ai nt en an ce of th e ai rcra ft.” 49 U.S.C. § 41 11 2( a); se e W

ol en s , 51 3 U.S. at 23 1 n.7 ; Ta j Mah al Tr av el

, In c. v. Delt a Air li ne s, In c. , 1 64 F.3 d 1 86 , 19 4 (3 d C ir. 1 99 8) . Con gr es s was co nc ern ed wit h va ria ti on s in

st at e la w on ly in so far as th ey rel at e to a pr ic e, ro ut e, or se rv ic e of an ai r carr ie r. Se e Dil ts , 76 9 F.3 d at 64 7- 48

. The Thi rd

, Nin th

, an d Elev en th Ci rcu it s, en co m pa ss in g 15
St at es , im po rta nt ai rli ne hu bs

, an d a m or e th an a th ird of th e na ti on ’s po pu la ti on , ha ve fo r y ears al lo wed st at e whi st le bl owe r cl ai m s ba se d on po st ho c ai r-s afet y co m pl ai nt s. Yet Air Met ho ds ha s refe rred us to no ev id en ce th at st at e-l aw de ci si on s to uc hi ng on

sa fet y ha ve ha d a si gn ifi can t i m pa ct on air -car rie r se rv ic e in th os e juri sd ic ti on s.

Fi fth

, th e W hi st le bl owe r Pro te ct io n Pro gr am do es no t de m on st rat e th at
W at so n’s cl ai m is ex pr es sl y pr e-em pt ed un de r th e ADA. Thi s co ur t in Bot z

-1 0-co nc lu de d th at th e W PP “ bo ls te red ” t h e ADA’ s pr e-em pt iv e effe ct an d m ad e it
“u n mi st ak ab le ” th at sa fet y -rel at ed whi st le bl owe r cl ai m s were pr e-em pt ed by th e ADA. The rat io na le was th at th e W PP ev id en ced Co ng res s’s de si re to m ak e fed eral
la w th e ex cl us iv e ve hi cl e fo r ai r-s afet y w hi st le bl owe rs

. 28 6 F.3 d at 49 7. Oth er ci rcu it s ha ve rejec t e d t h a t reas on in g, an d we are pe rs ua de d to ab an do n it

. Se e Ven tr es s , 60 3 F .3d at 6 83 (9 th Ci r.); Gar y , 3 97 F.3 d at 19 0 (3 d C ir.) ; Bra nc he , 34 2
F.3 d at 12 64 (1 1t h Ci r.). W e or di na ril y do n o t i n f er pr e-em pt io n fro m th e m ere

e x i s t e n c e of a fed eral en fo rcem en t m ech an is m

. N.Y

. St at e Dep ’t of So c. Se rv s

. v

. D u b li no , 41 3 U.S. 40 5, 41 5 (1 97 3)

. And we are sk ep ti cal th at Co ng res s, b e t w e e n
pa ss ag e of th e ADA in 19 78 an d en act m en t of th e W PP in 20 00
, ha d ado pt ed a pr eem pt io n re gi m e th at lef

t ai r-s afet y whi st le bl owe rs wit ho ut jud ic ia l re co ur se ag ai ns t

ret al ia ti on by th ei r em

pl oyers. Cf

. Si lk wo od v. Ker r- McGee Co rp

. , 46 4 U.S. 23 8, 25 1 (1 98 4) ; Hod

ge s , 44 F.3 d at 33 8. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at th e W PP di d no t ch an ge th e ADA’ s p re-e m

pt iv e sc op e in a m at eri al way

.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we ho ld th at th e ADA do es no t ex pr es sl y pr e-em pt
W at son’ s w ro ngf

ul- dis ch ar ge “ w his tle bl owe r” cl ai m in vo lv in g post hoc sa fe ty re por ts

to th e ai r car rie r. W e th us ov erru le Bot z in rel ev an t p art

.

Afte r we gr an te d reh ear i n g en ba nc , Air Met ho ds arg ue d in a su pp le m en ta l
br ie f an d at oral arg um en t th at W at so n’s clai m is im pl ie dl y pr e-em

pt ed by th e W PP

an d by th e Fed eral Av ia ti on Act of 19 58

. The se arg um en ts were no t rai se d in th e di st ric t co ur t, whe re Bot

z was th en co nt ro ll in g, an d were m en ti on ed on ly in pa rt an d
fle et in gl y be fo re th e th ree- jud ge pa ne l. W e de cl in e to co ns id er th em in th e f i rs t
in st an ce as an en ba nc co ur t.

* * *

The jud gm en t of th e di s t r i c t c o u rt is va cat ed

, an d th e cas e is rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-